Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL

TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

BOROUGH OF CROYDON (RATING) BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

NAZEING WOOD OR PARK BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

NORTH CUMBERLAND WATER BOARD BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

PAISLEY CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]

NATIONAL TRUST FOR SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Sir Waldron Smithers: On a point of Order. Before we get on with the further Business for today, Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to the fact that the B.B.C. this morning omitted to commence their broadcast programmes by playing the National Anthem on the occasion of the birthday of Her Majesty the Queen? Will you, Sir, as the First Commoner, summon the directors of the B.B.C. to the Bar of this House as traitors to their King and country?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me to deal with as a point of Order; it is a matter for the House.

Sir W. Smithers: But will you deal with it, Sir?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Surplus Aeroplane Engines (Disposal)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Minister of Supply if he is satisfied with the prices that his Department has obtained for approximately 15,000 areoplane engines, which have been disposed of for breaking up; and what steps were taken to offer these engines for industrial or other use in this country or to overseas buyers.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot): All surplus engines for which there is any market are offered for sale by competitive tender. Those for which there is no market are sold for scrap, also by competitive tender.

Mr. Cooper: Could my right hon. Friend confirm or deny that his Department has been getting only between 30s. and 60s. for these aircraft engines, whereas their value, in scrap materials and accessories, is in the neighbourhood of £20? Can he also confirm that his Department are selling complete aircraft for £15, and if these figures are correct does he not think that he would get a better bargain for the public if he advertised these surplus supplies more widely?

Mr. Wilmot: My hon. Friend's figures are inaccurate. The sales are advertised, and we get the best price by competitive tender.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Has the right hon. Gentleman a competent technical committee to advise on these surplus supplies before they are sold by competitive tender?

Mr. Wilmot: Yes, Sir.

Motor Tyres

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Supply how many motor tyres are still


stored at Newbury Racecourse; and if he proposes to offer these for sale before more of them have seriously deteriorated in condition.

Mr. Wilmot: None, Sir.

Royal Arsenal, Woolwich (Staff)

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Supply what is the total number of persons employed in the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, on the latest ascertainable date; how many of these were skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled and clerical workers respectively; and how do these numbers compare with those on the same date in 1938.

Mr. Wilmot: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES WOOLWICH.


Numbers employed.


——
5th July 1947.
2nd July 1938.


Skilled craftsmen
1,857
3,179


Other industrial employees.
5,155
13,918


Clerical workers*
904
1,353


Others (Technical and Miscellaneous).
599
1,191


Total
8,515
19,641


* Includes officers supplying clerical services on the shop floor.

Iron and Steel Disposals, Ltd.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Supply (1) who are the directors of Iron and Steel Disposals, Limited; what is the capital of the concern; what was its turnover in the last financial year; and how many persons are employed and what is the cost of their salaries;
(2) how much iron and steel scrap has been disposed of by Iron and Steel Disposals, Limited, in the last 12 months; how much remains to be disposed of; and how much has been imported by the trade as a whole.

Mr. Wilmot: As the answer is rather long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Iron and Steel Disposals, Limited was set up in 1943 to secure supplies of heavy steel scrap and to dispose of surplus iron and steel held by the Government. In form it is a private company, but the whole of its operations are controlled by the Ministry of Supply. The proceeds of all sales, less expenses, are handed over to the Ministry of Supply and no dividends are paid on the shares.

The directors are:

The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Dudley, M.C. (Chairman).
Captain A. H. Read (Managing Director).
Mr. M. H Clark.
Mr. J. B. Cowper.
Mr. A. K. McCosh.
Mr. H. W. Secker.
Mr. G. A. Tawse.

The directors receive no fees, nor any allowance for expenses.

The capital of the Company is £1,000 m shares of £I each, fully paid up and effectively held by the British Iron and Steel Corporation, Limited. The turnover for the year ended 30th June, 1947, was £10,030,359. In addition to the directors, 338 persons are employed, at a cost in salaries of £128,600 a year.

During the year ended 30th June, 1947, the Company have disposed of 1,191,500 tons of iron and steel scrap. On 30th June, 1947, the balance to be disposed of was approximately 260,000 tons, but of this the bulk is alloy steel scrap, which can only be used in small quantities by the steel industry. Imports for the last 12 months amount to 500,000 tons, almost the whole of which was imported by Iron and Steel Disposals.

Atomic Energy Plant, Cumberland

Mr. Frank Anderson: asked the Minister of Supply, with regard to the establishment of an atomic energy plant at Sellafield, Cumberland, whether the farmers in this area will be assured that no ill-effects will accrue to cattle, sheep, pigs, etc., and to grassland that is situated within easy reach of Sellafield.

Mr. J. Wilmot: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE

British Military Equipment

Mr. Thomas Macpherson: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of


the gradual withdrawal of British troops in Greece, the Greek Government is to be permitted to acquire surpluses of British military equipment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I have been asked to reply. On 26th March, the British Stores and Disposals Mission in Greece concluded an agreement with the Greek Government covering the disposal of such stores and equipment belonging to the British Army and the Royal Air Force as were declared surplus to their requirements prior to and when the British Forces were withdrawn from Greece, as a free gift to the Greek Government. The Greek Government were not in a position to buy them in bulk. Certain categories of stores were not included in this agreement. The most important exclusion was that of 2,000 motor vehicles of British origin. The Greek Government undertook to provide facilities both for the sale of these for export by His Majesty's Government, and for their safe custody until final sale arrangements could be made.

Mr. Macpherson: When these supplies are exhausted is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to send further supplies of war equipment and stores to the Greek Government.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir; but that is another question.

British Assistance

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement indicating all forms of aid given to Greece since the liberation in 1944, showing the value of money given and loaned, goods given and sold on long-credit terms, arms and military equipment given and sold; and indicating the value of the help since 31st March, 1947.

Mr. Mayhew: During the Mutual Aid period ending on 31st December, 1945, His Majesty's Government extended to Greece assistance to the total value of £88,000,000. In respect of the period from 1st January, 1946, until 22nd May, 1947, on which date United States assistance became effective, further assistance to the value of £44,000,000 has been given or promised. This includes a sum of £2,000,000 beyond' that voted in March last in respect of equipment de livered

to the Greeks after 31st March, 1947, for the re-organisation of their armed forces, and a further sum to meet certain sterling costs incurred by the Greeks prior to this date. Supplementary estimates will be presented in due course. It includes also a sum estimated at £1,500,000 in respect of surplus stores in Greece, which have been put at the disposal of the Greek Government under an agreement of 26th March, 1947.

Mr. Piratin: Has the Minister any information to give the House as to how this money has been spent—whether on the reconstruction of Greece or the purchasing of armaments to build up an army?

Mr. Mayhew: Mainly on military expenditure, but, of course, we have made great contributions to U.N.R.R.A. as well.

Major Bruce: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this country has incurred any dollar expenditure in respect of the allowance given to Greece?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.

Mr. Thurtle: Has the hon. Gentleman any information as to the amount of assistance of a similar character which may have been given indirectly to the Greek insurgents by the Russian Government?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I ask my hon. Friend whether his last answer but one was intended to convey to the House that this £130 million spent in Greece was spent in sterling and involved no dollars?

Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps I might have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Royal Parks (Railings)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Works whether it is proposed to replace the railings around the Royal Parks, or whether he has any permanent alternative in mind.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): There is no present intention of replacing the former high iron railings around the Royal Parks. In place of these it is proposed to plant hedges, protected where


necessary by low steel mesh fencing. In places where hedges cannot be planted, it may be necessary to resort to some other kind of fencing.

Sir T. Moore: While I welcome the decision to discard railings, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will consider the use of yews or golden privet, as these seem to be particularly suitable?

Mr. Key: Most of these have, I think, been tried out in various parks.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the appropriate authorities, to have a similar decision is taken in respect of all the London squares?

Mr. Key: I do not think it has anything to do with the Minister of Works what people do with private property in the squares of London.

Requisitioned Premises (Release)

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Works how many hotels, large houses and flats, respectively, in the United Kingdom are at present requisitioned by the Government for any other use than dwelling accommodation; and how many of each category have been released for use as dwelling accommodation since 7th February, 1946.

Mr. Key: The number of hotels held by all Departments at 30th June last, for use other than as family dwellings, was 278, and the number of large houses and flats held by Departments, other than the Health Departments, on the same basis, was 2,257, and 1,546 respectively. One thousand, four hundred and seventy-five hotels, 3,967 large houses and 2,612 flats have been released since 1st February, 1946, including 93 flats and 193 large houses, and a limited number of hotels which have been transferred to the Ministry of Health for dwelling purposes.

Mr. Beechman: Is the Minister aware that there are some evacuees—I mean from the last war—in the hotels who want to get home again, and will he do something about that?

Mr. Key: We are doing our best to meet such cases, but we have other very urgent demands upon us.

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Works how many hotels, large houses, small houses and flats, respectively, in the London civil defence region, are at present, requisitioned by the Government for other use than dwelling accommodation; and how many of each category have been released for use as dwelling accommodation since 21st April, 1947.

Mr. Key: Government Departments held on requisition in the London Civil Defence Region at the 30th June last, 829 large houses, 367 small houses, and 1,431 flats for purposes other than family dwellings. The number of each category released since 1st April, 1947, was six hotels, 21 large houses, 10 small houses and 64 flats. In addition, requisitioning Departments have transferred to the Ministry of Health five hotels, 17 large houses, and 13 small houses for housing purposes. The Ministry of Health have released 588 small houses and 159 flats to their owners.

Zinc Sheets

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Works if he will introduce a system of priorities in the distribution of zinc sheets, in view of the fact that supplies are limited and are not, under present arrangements, always used for the most urgent purposes or distributed fairly.

Mr. Key: The shortage of zinc sheets is not so acute that I should feel justified in imposing restrictions at this juncture, but if my hon. Friend can give me any instances of urgent work being held up I will have them investigated.

Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware that the only persons who seem to be able to get supplies of zinc sheets are those on terms of good personal relationship with the manufacturers, and who purchased from them before the war; and that other people are finding great difficulty in getting the necessary supplies?

Mr. Key: No, Sir, I am not aware of it.

Cement Supplies

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Works what is the order of priorities for the available supplies of cement; and whether he is satisfied that the claims of housing have their proper place in the list.

Mr. Key: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 16th June last. Due consideration is given to housing.

Mr. Davies: Can the Minister indicate what he means by "due consideration is given to housing"? What is this working out at in terms of percentage or ratio of the supplies? One local authority is, I understand, getting only one-fifth of its previous supplies.

Mr. Key: The difficulty has been, up to the present, that we have had to make up for the great shortage of cement that occurred as a result of the fuel shortage in the early part of the year. I am given to understand that claims are now being met in increasing ratio.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Is the Minister aware that some local authorities can only build houses on bad land, subject to mining subsidence; and is he aware that, in such cases, a great deal of cement is needed for special rafts; and will he give proper consideration to those local authorities?

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. In those cases, if applications are made to my regional officers of the district, they will see that they receive urgent attention.

Mr. Charles Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is still an unnecessary shortage all over the country of this most important material?

Mr. Key: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "unnecessary." There is a shortage of this material all over the country; that we know.

Tower of London (Opening)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Works what parts of the Tower of London which were accessible to visitors in 1939 are still closed; and when he expects that they will again be open to the public.

Mr. Key: Only the Wakefield Tower is still closed. Preparations for re-opening it for the display of the Crown Jewels are in hand and will be completed as soon as possible.

Mr. Greenwood: Would my right hon. Friend say, with more precision, what is meant by "as soon as possible "; and will he bear in mind that the Tower of

London is of the greatest importance to our tourist trade and of great interest to visitors from the provinces; and will he urge his Department to "pull up its socks"?

Mr. Key: Work is at present proceeding upon it, and it will be open as quickly as we can do so. We have to take account of the fact that there are shortages of labour and materials, which are also required for other purposes.

Mr. Bowles: Although I am not quite certain whether the Tower of London is now open on Sundays—it was not up to about three years ago—can my right hon. Friend say whether he will open it on Sundays?

Mr. Key: I will give consideration to that matter.

Lime

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Works to what extent he has explored the possibility of using lime as an alternative to cement; what examination has been made of this matter; and whether any report has been issued.

Mr. Key: Lime is not a general substitute for cement' but it can be usefully employed in mortar for brick work and for certain types of rendering, and is in fact commonly used for these purposes. A number of reports on the use of lime have been published by the Building Research Station, and I am sending the hon. Member a note of them.

Mr. George Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some people deliberately closed down lime kilns and that that is the reason we may be short of lime now? Will he look into the matter to see whether it is not possible to produce more lime?

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir, questions on the use of lime and its future supply are under special consideration at the present time.

Government Hospitality Fund

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Works the amount spent by the Government Hospitality Fund during the first six months of this year; the number of parties in respect of which expenditure from the fund was involved; and the figures for the corresponding periods of 1945 and 1946.

Mr. Key: The amount spent by the Government Hospitality Fund during the first six months of this year was £32,266 4s. 11d.; the number of functions was 155; figures for the corresponding periods of 1945 and 1946 are, respectively, £10,345 12S. 7d. for 87 functions, and £23,029 19s. for 160 functions

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the justification in these days for this steady and progressive increase in public entertaining at the public expense?

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. One of the great things which we have to do is to get the necessary contacts with countries and people abroad, so that we may have a due appreciation of each other's problems. It is, I think, a very important thing in international contacts that this entertaining should go on. I might add that the chief items in the 1947 expenses have been the Parliamentary delegations invited to London by the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker.

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether we are to understand that the only way in which the Government can get contact with foreigners is by giving them food and drink?

Mr. Key: Arrangements for due hospitality have to be made, and for their living accommodation and entertainment while in this country. We cannot expect them to come here and to live on the streets in poverty.

Mr. Dumpleton: Can my right hon. Friend say what were the prewar figures?

Mr. Key: I have given the comparison for which I was asked. I was asked only for the 1945 and 1946 amounts, probably for obvious reasons.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Government, in view of the food crisis, stop entertaining their friends at the taxpayers' expense; and are these banquets subject to the regulations of the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Key: I think I can say quite definitely that the people who are entertained here are not the friends, in the sense which the hon. Gentleman uses the words, of Members of His Majesty's Government.

They are the guests of the Government of this country, and, as such, should be adequately and properly entertained.

Mr. Scollan: Will the Minister tell the House how these figures compare with the money spent in this country entertaining Ribbentrop and his guests, who were here before the war?

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question whether these banquets are in accordance with the regulations of the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Key: So far as my information goes, "Yes. Sir."

Westminster Hall Repairs

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Works the quantity of steel tubing and corrugated iron which is being required now, and for the next two years, in connection with the repairs to Westminster Hall.

Mr. Key: There are 40,000 feet of tubular scaffolding and about 330 sheets of corrugated iron in use in connection with repairs to the roof of Westminster Hall. This amount will be sufficient to complete the repairs.

Sir T. Moore: Following up the right hon. Gentleman's reply of last week with regard to the labour employed on this job, may I ask if it would not be more economical to employ more men now and so release the men and material sooner for other purposes?

Mr. Key: No, Sir. After due consideration, I have come to the conclusion that it would not be so.

Mr. T. Macpherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects this work in Westminster Hall to be finished, and does he know anybody who, during the last 30 years, has seen Westminster Hall without scaffolding?

Mr. Key: In my answer last week I said that there are other things in Westminster Hall because of which it will be impossible to remove some of the scaffolding until the new House of Commons has been completed, and for that reason, therefore, Westminster Hall would not be set free merely by taking down the scaffolding.

House of Commons Chamber (Ventilation)

Dr. Segal: asked the Minister of Works whether he has any suggestions to make for improving the ventilation of this Chamber.

Mr. Key: The present system is fairly satisfactory, although the filter screens are in need of repair. This work will be carried out during the coming recess.

Dr. Segal: Is the Minister aware that the hot air in this Chamber—[Interruption.]

Sir W. Smithers: Poison gas!

Dr. Segal: —is not a party issue? Is the Minister aware that the hot air tends to become stagnant, and could he not arrange to give it better circulation by installing a few more windows on hinges or by arranging air conditioning plant or electric fans?

Mr. Key: The question of the best means of overcoming the difficulties which have arisen is under consideration.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is possible to copy the good example of another place, which has already got fans installed for the purpose of improving ventilation?

Mr. Key: I will look into that question.

Doors (Manufacture)

Mr. Hoy: asked the Minister of Works whether he has considered representations made against the order prohibiting the manufacture of mortised and tenoned doors; if he is aware of the effect this order will have on the people engaged in, this industry in Scotland; and if he will take immediate steps to have the order withdrawn.

Mr. Key: There is no general prohibition on the manufacture of mortised and tenoned doors. The only restriction is that such doors, which use more timber than dowelled doors, may not be manufactured from a special grade of imported timber known as door stock, which is in particularly short supply. This decision was taken after full discussion with the Industry, but representations have since been made and are under consideration.

Mr. Hoy: Is it not a fact that this decision was arrived at without any consultation

with Scottish interests, and can he give the House an assurance before this prohibition becomes effective that Scottish interests will be consulted?

Mr. Key: I believe it is true that in the discussions which took place the Scottish representatives were not there when the matter was dealt with, although they were affiliated to the English Joinery Manufacturers' Association. In the latest discussions that are taking place, representations from the Scottish Association are being taken into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEMPORARY HOUSING (FENCING)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Works why his Department is reluctant to provide proper fencing to the gardens of bungalows on Government Department's temporary housing estates; and whether he appreciates the loss of foodstuffs due to this misconceived economy.

Mr. Key: My Department is responsible for providing fencing for the back gardens of temporary houses, but I am faced with a serious shortage of all kinds of fencing materials. I appreciate the troubles that arise from lack of fencing and it will be provided as rapidly as the available supplies allow.

Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is one of the chief complaints of the inhabitants of these housing estates that they cannot cultivate their gardens because they are open to dogs, and for children to play over; and if he decides to put up fencing, will he ensure that it is substantial and divides the gardens one from the other?

Mr. Key: We will do our best to meet the needs.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

High Court Judges (Pensions)

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether High Court judges appointed from the Indian Civil Service, who are compelled to retire, will receive a proportion of the additional pension to which they would normally have been entitled on completion of 11½ years' service as judges or attainment of 60 years of age or


retirement on medical grounds before 60 years of age; and whether they will receive any compensation.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): There is no question at present of any High Court Judges being compelled to retire. Their position is differentiated from that of members of the Civil Services by the fact that under the existing constitution they are independent of control by the Executive. The representatives of the future Dominion Governments of both India and Pakistan have agreed that the maintenance of the principle of an independent judiciary is of paramount importance and, at their request, there has been included in Section 10 (2, b) of the Indian Independence Act a guarantee of the conditions of service of the judges now in office, including their rights as respects their tenure of office. They have also agreed that these judges would be entitled to rank for the grant of proportionate pension if their constitutional position were to be altered so radically as to affect their independence. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government have decided that so long as the judiciary remain constitutionally independent of the executive High Court judges are ineligible for the grant of either proportionate pension or compensation.

Indian Army Units, Hyderabad

Brigadier Low: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the strength of the Indian Army at present stationed in the territory of Hyderabad; of this number how many are British personnel; and when these Indian Army troops will be withdrawn.

Mr. A. Henderson: The strength of the Indian Army stationed in Hyderabad territory is 13,600 of which 350 are British personnel. Withdrawal is taking place in accordance with a programme which is being arranged by the Government of India in consultation with the Hyderabad Government. It will probably be completed by about the end of the year. Combatant units are being moved first, and technical personnel last.

Gurkha Regiments (Future)

Brigadier Low: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is intended that any or all of the present

Gurkha regiments will join the Army of India or of Pakistan on 15th August, or whether they will be directly under the Supreme Commander until arrangements for their future have been agreed; and if he will give an assurance that none of these regiments will lose their present character of being officered by British officers without this House being first informed.

Mr. A. Henderson: The future of the Gurkha regiments is still the subject of negotiations between the Governments of Nepal, India and the United Kingdom, and urgent steps are being taken to hasten their conclusion. Meanwhile all the Gurkha units, as part of the Indian Army, will remain under the administrative control of the Supreme Commander. The House will be informed of the outcome of such negotiations at the earliest possible moment.

Brigadier Low: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that they will remain under the administrative control of me Supreme Commander, does he mean that they will not pass to either the Dominion of India or the Dominion of Pakistan on 15th August?

Mr. Henderson: After 15th August Gurkhas stationed in India will be under the operational control of General Lockhart, the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army, and those in Pakistan under General Messervy, the Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a categorical assurance on behalf of His Majesty's Government that the existing units of the Gurkha Brigade will not be transferred as such to either Pakistan or the Dominion of India?

Mr. Henderson: I am not in a position to give that assurance because it will depend on the outcome of these negotiations.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: With great respect, is this not purely a matter for the British Government and no one else can give a decision on it?

Earl Winterton: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that His Majesty's Government have no responsibility in the matter of the Gurkhas?

Mr. Henderson: I am not suggesting that we have no responsibility. What I am suggesting is that, in view of the new situation that is arising in India, the future of the present Gurkha regiments is to be determined by agreement between the three Governments I have mentioned.

Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say which Minister of His Majesty's Government will be responsible for the Gurkhas after 15th August so that we can continue pressing for this assurance?

Mr. Henderson: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question down.

Mr. Vane: Have the authorities in Nepal expressed any opinion as to the future of the Gurkhas?

Mr. Henderson: The authorities in Nepal have had ample opportunity of expressing their views in the discussions which have already taken place.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a special responsibility in this matter rests between the British Government and the Government of Nepal, because the latter is an independent Government with whom we have relations through the Foreign Office? I should like to be assured that before any decision is taken full weight will be given to that aspect of the question.

Mr. Henderson: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government of Nepal have already expressed their views and will no doubt have a great deal to say in the discussions that are shortly to take place.

Calcutta Police (British Subordinate Officers)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what provisions are being made for the British subordinate officers of the Calcutta police who do not wish to serve either India or Pakistan.

Mr. A. Henderson: As stated by the Prime Minister on the Second Reading of the Indian Independence Act the leaders of the Indian parties have guaranteed the continuance of the existing terms and conditions of service to all persons who are in Government service, whether

Central or Provincial, and the guarantee, therefore, covers these officers. The provision to be made for any officer who does not desire to continue his service with the Calcutta police is a matter for the Provincial Government concerned to decide in accordance with the terms of his employment.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In the event of the two Indian Governments not carrying out this guarantee in future, are His Majesty's Government willing to make sure that these men receive their full rights and pensions?

Mr. Henderson: I am not prepared to make any statement beyond expressing the view that there is no reason to assume that either of these Governments will not carry out their obligations.

Armed Forces (Pension Rights)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what steps are contemplated for meeting pension rights and compensation for termination of careers of members of the Armed Forces H.Q. (India) British ex-Services Ministerial Association.

Mr. A. Henderson: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) on 21st July.

Ordnance Factories (European Staff)

Commander Noble: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what are the compensation arrangements for the European members of the staff of the Indian ordnance factories and allied establishments.

Mr. A. Henderson: Those European members of the staff of the Indian ordnance factories who were appointed by the Government of India are not covered by the compensation arrangements set out in Command Paper 7116. The entitlement of those appointed by the Secretary of State is under active consideration, and I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member about them as soon as possible.

Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that these men are particularly worried about their provident funds and


their leave, and will he give an assurance that these matters will be very carefully gone into?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

British Officers (Pensions)

Brigadier Low: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the service rendered and to be rendered by those British officers who have served with the Indian Army since 1st July, 1946, and are continuing to serve with the Army of India or Pakistan, he will at once cause to be cancelled the ruling that officers promoted to higher substantive rank after 1st July, 1946, may not count towards pension entitlement paid acting or temporary service in that higher rank; and on what grounds such a ruling was published in July, 1947, with retroactive operation to July, 1946.

Mr. A. Henderson: As the hon. and gallant Member knows the pensions of the Indian Service are based upon the British codes. The rule which he refers to has been a feature of the British code since April, 1946. It has only recently come to notice that the rule was not applied to the Indian Service until last month. My noble Friend is in communication with the Viceroy on the point.

Brigadier Low: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is entirely unfair to apply this rule to these officers who are prevented, not by then-own action but by Governmental action of one kind or another, from serving two years or more, and if the rule is enforced how does he think that he will obtain the required number of volunteers to stay in the India or Pakistan forces?

Mr. Henderson: That is the reason why my noble Friend is communicating with the Viceroy—because of the effect of this order not having been put into operation until a month ago. On the other hand, I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have answered a number of Questions in past months in which hon. Members have sought to bring the British pension code into operation throughout the Indian services. In this case it operates against the officers concerned, and it is a little difficult to say that the Indian Army officers should take the smooth but not the rough.

Deceased Officer's Missing Will

Mr. Driberg: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is aware that the father of the late Captain Edward B. Clibborn, 3/16 Punjab Regiment, Indian Army, who died as a prisoner of war in Changi Camp, Singapore, was notified in May, 1946, that his son's will had been sent to the India Office, London, but that, despite repeated applications by his solicitors, the will has not been forwarded to him; whether this will has been lost; and what steps he proposes to take in that event to enable those concerned to obtain without further cost probate of the will, of which a copy is available.

Mr. A. Henderson: I am aware of the facts of this case. Investigations regarding the whereabouts of the will in question have been proceeding since October, 1946, when application for it was first made. I regret that the authorities in India have been unable to trace its disposal and that it must now be considered to have been lost in transit in India. A certificate to this effect is being supplied to the solicitors to enable them to prove the certified copy of the will which is available. I am consulting the Government of India as regards what I take to be a suggestion that they should bear increased costs that may be incurred in taking out probate as a result of the loss of the original will, and will communicate with my hon. Friend on receipt of their reply.

Mr. Driberg: Whether, ultimately, the Government of India or my right hon. and learned Friend's Department bears the costs incurred, may I take it from his very forthcoming answer that he agrees that it would be quite inequitable that such costs should fall upon this officer's family?

Mr. Henderson: I am not here to express opinions, and I think I had better stick to the terms of my reply.

Secretary of State's Services

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if former officers of the Secretary of State's services in India who desire to retire must retire on or before 15th August next, or if they can remain in the services while being free to retire at any time after 15th August next.

Mr. A. Henderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 9 of the announcement in regard to compensation made by the Prime Minister on 30th April last, and paragraph 10 of the Viceroy's statement made on the same date.

Mr. Reid: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend if, according to that statement, officers can stay on after 15th August and need not declare their intentions on or before that date?

Mr. Henderson: Of course, the Viceroy, in terms, invited officers to remain, but there is no compulsion.

Mr. Hector Hughes: If such officers remain, will they do so on terms as good as those which they enjoyed before?

Mr. Henderson: indicated assent.

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many officers of the Secretary of State's services in India were in these services when the recent Indian Independence Act was passed; and how many have elected to retire.

Mr. A. Henderson: The Government of India have been asked to furnish the information, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as it is received.

Brigadier Low: Will the Minister publish the figures in HANSARD so that all hon. Members can see them?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

Indian States (Consultation)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Chamber of Princes was consulted collectively or the Rulers of the Indian States individually, before it was decided to set up the Dominions of India and Pakistan, respectively; and what were the general views they expressed.

Mr. A. Henderson: Neither the Chamber of Princes nor the Rulers of Indian States individually were consulted regarding His Majesty's Government's announcement of 3rd June. In paragraph 18 of that statement it was explained that it related only to British India and that His Majesty's Government's policy towards the Indian States set out in the Cabinet Mission's Memorandum of 12th May, 1946, remained unchanged.

Sir T. Moore: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate what is to be the future of those Indian States who are opposed to inclusion in the new Dominions?

Mr. Henderson: That is an entirely different matter, and is not dealt with in my reply because it was not contained in the Question.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Since this is probably the last time upon which the title of Under-Secretary of State for India will appear on the Order Paper, may we know who will answer Questions in this House in future on the very important matters which are as yet by no means decided?

Mr. Henderson: I think that question had better be addressed to other quarters.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Governments, in addition to the United Kingdom Government, have submitted a draft International Bill of Human Rights to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Mr. Mayhew: Draft Bills or Declarations of Human Rights were submitted in varying form by the Governments of Chile, Cuba, India and Panama.

Mr. Fletcher: Would my hon. Friend arrange for them to be published?

Mr. Mayhew: They are available through the United Nations Information Office in London.

Mr. Fletcher: Would my hon. Friend make them available in the Library?

Mr. Mayhew: Copies of them are in the Library.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the draft International Bill on Human Rights will be discussed at the International Law Association annual meeting in Prague next month, and will the Government be represented there?

Mr. Mayhew: I should need notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION

Young Trees (Felling)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will introduce legislation to curtail the reckless cutting down of young trees for firewood.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): No, Sir. My right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade already exercises control of fellings under emergency powers, and I am not convinced that further control by me is necessary.

Mr. Haire: Are there no steps which can be taken to stop this vandalism in our beech woods, especially in Bedfordshire, where racketeers cut down growing timber for firewood?

Mr. Williams: I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend must grant a licence before felling can take place, except up to a maximum quantity of 250 cubic feet a month without licence.

Mr. Vane: Is the Minister aware that complaints are coming from all over England and that growing timber is being cut in nearly every county without licence, and is he further aware that it is common knowledge that the control administered by his right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade is an utter farce?

Mr. Williams: Perhaps the hon. Member will bring those facts to the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend?

Mr. Vane: I have.

Earl Winterton: Will the Minister do nothing to interfere with the rotation cutting of underwood crops in Kent and Sussex, which is a very valuable trade there, and the refuse of which is used for firewood; and is he aware that many people who do not know the country from Piccadilly when they see underwood being cut, are under the impression that the tree is being felled?

Mr. Drayson: Is the Minister aware that the necessity of cutting down these trees is entirely the responsibility of the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Road Construction, Ennerdale (Workers)

Mr. F. Anderson: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of work-people

who are engaged upon the construction of the road at Ennerdale for afforestation; how the men are conveyed to and from work; and if suitable canteen and latrine accommodation has been provided.

Mr. T. Williams: At present there are 182 workers (subject to slight daily fluctutations) employed on road construction work at Ennerdale, who are transported to and from work by lorries; there are no canteen facilities, but arrangements exist for the men to make tea as required. Suitable latrine accommodation has been provided.

Mr. Anderson: Is not my right Hon. Friend aware that the men concerned are being conveyed in open trucks, even when it is very bad weather, and for long distances? What is going to be done to provide proper facilities for them?

Mr. Williams: As my hon. Friend is aware, it is a very difficult district in which to house a large number of workers. So far as we can make social arrangements they are being made to encourage the men to do their best.

Mr. Anderson: Why have not canteen facilities been provided? The men are complaining very strongly about it.

Mr. Williams: I do not think it is possible physically to provide canteens in the area, where we have only commenced during the past few months to recruit labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Poultry Industry (Government Policy)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has considered the details, which have been sent to him, concerning increased production in the poultry industry; and if he will make a statement of Government policy in this matter.

Mr. T. Williams: I have read these proposals with interest. As they have been published they will no doubt be considered by the national poultry organisations. I am ready to consider any representations from those organisations about these proposals or in regard to the general welfare of the poultry industry.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that the promoters of this scheme have


put forward concrete proposals, will the Minister undertake to have a conference or a meeting with these people, together with his advisers so as to see what can be done over the whole country?

Mr. Williams: Immediately the poultry industry requests a meeting I shall be quite ready to consider the matter.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Are the buff and white Orpingtons affected by what the hon. Member opposite has said?

Sir W. Smithers: In asking the Minister to ignore that question, may I urge him to take the lead and to give serious consideration to the proposals put forward?

Mr. Williams: I have already explained to the hon. Member that the moment the poultry organisations have had time to examine the proposals, which are very comprehensive and could not fail to require a major Parliamentary Measure, I shall be very happy indeed to meet them.

Production Estimates

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to give some estimate of the production figures on the farms throughout the country for the year 1947; and how this estimate compares with the peak period production for 1943–44 and the production figures for 1939.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir, I am not prepared to make such an estimate until the agricultural census for June, 1947, is complete and the current harvest further advanced.

Mr. De la Bère: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman knows one elementary fact, which is that these production figures are substantially down from the peak period of 1943, and that there is no sign at all of a drive for agricultural production? Further, is it not a fact that the Government have neglected their responsibilities in this matter?

Mr. Williams: One thing I am sure about is that my predecessor in office, perhaps on the inspiration of the hon. Gentleman entered into the realm of prophecy in 1943 and 1944, and that immediately he made his prophecies, that year's production suffered from a spell of bad weather and all his prognostications went wrong.

Feedingstuff Rations

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture the amounts of feedingstuff rations to be issued from the autumn onwards; and the increases in the home production of eggs, bacon and other livestock products he expects will be attained in 1948.

Mr. T. Williams: The winter ration scales were announced on 1st August. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the announcement. No reliable estimate can be made of the increased output of livestock products that will result in 1948.

Mr. Hurd: Does the Minister recognise that the rations which he announced on Saturday are miserably inadequate as a basis for the extension of egg production and that unless he can do considerably better he is condemning the housewives of this country to practically no rations of eggs and bacon next year?

Mr. Williams: Surely, the hon. Gentleman is aware that I am not condemning the housewives to anything, and that what we have done is to intimate that from 1st October we shall distribute all the foodstuffs that are available to us.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Does the Minister realise that by his own announcement only one-fifth of the number of pigs and poultry in June, 1939, and December, 1940, are affected? Does he think that that is an adequate way of dealing with the problem at this moment and to enable this section of the agricultural industry to make its contribution?

Mr. Williams: I readily understand and appreciate that the rations available are miserably inadequate for the purpose but I am equally aware that we cannot distribute what we do not possess

Lucas Committee (Report)

Mr. Tiffany: asked the Minister of Agriculture when he anticipates that the Lucas Committee will submit its Report.

Mr. T. Williams: In the autumn, Sir.

Mr. Tiffany: Can my right hon. Friend indicate when it will be available to Members of this House?

Mr. Williams: Not until the Report is actually received.

Rural Economy Service (Expenditure)

Lady Noel-Buxton: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total expenditure of his Department on the Rural Economy Service from its inception to its relinquishment by his Department.

Mr. T. Williams: Expenditure by local education authorities on instruction in the utilisation of home-produced food, including the appointment of rural domestic economy instructresses, was grant-aided by my Department up to 31st March, 1947, when responsibility passed to the Ministry of Education. Instruction was provided by authorities as part of their general provision for agricultural education ranking for grant from my Department and no separate figures of the expenditure involved are available.

Advisory Service (Women)

Lady Noel-Buxton: asked the Minister of Agriculture what percentage of women have so far been recruited in each grade of the National Agriculture Advisory Service, from the highest to the lowest grade.

Mr. T. Williams: Since the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following table gives the desired information:


Grade
Total Numbers in Post.
Number of Women.
Percentage of Women.


Above 1
…
14
—
—


I
…
120
—
—


II
…
162
3
2


III
…
303
34
11


IV (a)
…
28
5
18


IV (b)
…
93
14
15


A
…
222
41
19


B
…
236
89
38


TOTAL
…
1,178
186
16

Increased Food Production (Conference)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, if he has now considered the recommendations for increased food production made by the conference convened by the Royal Agricultural Society of England; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. I have also had the advantage of a discussion with

representatives of the society. Some of their recommendations have already been covered by subsequent action on the part of the Government, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the main issues of policy involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY (RESEARCH STATION)

Mr. Beechman: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to conduct research into the breeding grounds and migration of fish normally caught by our fishermen in our home waters, so that an information service can be instituted for the benefit of fishermen, with a view to increasing home production.

Mr. T. Williams: A programme of research, correlated with the work of other countries through the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, has been put into operation and its scope will be widened as additional personnel can be recruited. The results are announced as they become available and it is hoped to extend this service.

Mr. Beechman: Is the Marine Biology Research Station at Plymouth functioning again? It did most valuable work.

Mr. Williams: I could not say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADA (MALTESE IMMIGRANTS)

Mr. Mallalieu: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he is aware that the Canadian Government is refusing permission to Maltese to enter the Dominion as immigrants on the ground that they are not British subjects; and whether he will make representations to the Canadian Government on this matter.

Mr. A. Henderson: I have been asked to reply. The Canadian immigration regulations have since 1931 included a provision for the entry of British subjects from the United Kingdom, Eire, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Australia and the Union of South Africa. British subjects from other parts of the Commonwealth have not been admitted as immigrants, save in very special circumstances. The question of the


possible immigration of Maltese into Canada is at present under discussion with the Canadian Government.

Mr. Piratin: Does "British subjects from the Union of South Africa" include coloured subjects?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (POLITICAL PRISONERS)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what report has been received from His Majesty's Chargè d'Affaires at Madrid, in connection with the arrest in Spain of Senor José Satue, General Secretary of the Radio Telegraphist Workers' Union.

Mr. Mayhew: His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires has reported that José Satue has been committed for trial on a charge of subversive activities, having been found in possession of a printing press used for producing propaganda sheets in connection with the May Day celebrations. The trial has not yet taken place.

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that 10 young persons, of whom five are under 21 years of age and three 17 years of age and described as Communists, are now on trial in Spain for opposing the Franco regime; that the prosecutor has indicated that he will ask for the death sentence in six cases and imprisonment for 30 years for the remainder; and whether he will instruct His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Madrid to arrange for an observer to attend this trial and to take all possible action on behalf of the accused.

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any observer was present at the trial in Madrid of Isabel Torralba and nine other Spanish youths; whether any report has been called for of this trial; and, if no report has been called for, whether steps will be taken to expedite such a report, in view of the desire expressed by some youth organisations in this country to assist with an appeal if this seems necessary and justified.

Mr. Mayhew: Full reports have been received on this matter from the Embassy and a member of the staff was present at the trial, which took place on 28th July.
The charge, which was not disputed by the defence, was that the accused were concerned in the placing of bombs in Madrid, which caused injury to passers-by and damage to property. The sentences passed by the Court are subject to confirmation by higher authority and have not yet been made public, but it is believed that only the alleged leader of the gang, who is 40 years old, has been condemned to death, whilst the remainder have received sentences of imprisonment.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Surplus Vehicles, B.A.O.R. (Disposal)

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how, and when, he intends to dispose of the 10,000 surplus vehicles in B.A.O.R. handed over to his Department; and how are those sold on the civilian market in Germany accounted for.

Mr. Mayhew: The vehicles in question are now being offered for sale outside Germany by competitive tender. None of them has so far been sold on the German market.

Basic Industries (Nationalisation)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will announce the steps being taken to nationalise the basic industries in the British zone of Germany.

Mr. Mayhew: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall), on 7th July, to which at present I have nothing to add.

Ex-German Army Officers (Soviet Army)

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has received of offers of employment in the Soviet army made by Russians to ex-German Army officers living in the British zone.

Mr. Mayhew: No concrete evidence has been received of offers of employment in the Soviet army being made by Russians to ex-German officers living in the British zone.

Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask what is meant by "concrete evidence," and whether it


is now possible to answer the Question, which is, what reports have been received?

Mr. Mayhew: We have heard some rumours and we are sifting our information.

Military Government Courts (British Civilians)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the legal authority under which military government courts in the British zone of Germany, and in Berlin, try British civilians; and whether such civilians have a right of appeal to higher courts in Great Britain.

Mr. Mayhew: Military government courts have been replaced in the British zone of Germany and the British sector of Berlin by Control Commission courts, functioning in accordance with the provisions of Military Government Ordinances promulgated by the Commander-in-Chief under the supreme authority vested in him, and exercising jurisdiction over British civilians. Appeals lie to a Control Commission court of appeal in the British zone. I am advised that there is no appeal to courts in this country.

Mr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs that there should be no further right of appeal?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. I do not think so. This position is quite formal and legitimate.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ORGANISATION

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what countries were asked to subscribe to the $100,000,000 required by U.N.O. for the International Refugee Organisation; what countries have subscribed; how much each has subscribed; and how the 750,000 displaced persons are being maintained at present.

Mr. Mayhew: As the answer is necessarily rather long and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The provisional budget for the International Refugee Organisation as laid down in its constitution and approved by the General Assembly is 4,800,000 dollars for administrative expenses and 151,060,500 dollars for operational expenses. The Preparatory Commission has adopted 75 per cent. of this Budget as a Budget for its interim activities. I understand that, of the 20 Governments who have signed the constitution either with or without reservation, the following countries have subscribed a part of their contribution:

Australia: £165,934.
Belgium: 1,000,000 Belgian francs.
Dominican Republic: 15,706 dollars.
Guatemala: 2,550 Swiss francs.
Norway: 5,000 Kroner.
United Kingdom: £500,000.

In addition, the United Nations has made a loan of 1,000,000 dollars and U.N.R.R.A. a loan of 2,000,000 dollars.

The 750,000 displaced persons are being maintained at present partly out of advances in kind made by the authorities in the zones of occupation in Germany and Austria and partly out of the above funds.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many applications have been received within the last recorded six months for German prisoners of war to be allowed to go home on compassionate grounds; and how many granted.

Mr. Mayhew: Twenty-three thousand, three hundred and eighty-four applications were received and 4,103 were granted in the last six months.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the comparatively small number granted compared with the number of applications made, will the hon. Gentleman say whether a more generous interpretation of the term "compassionate grounds" could not be applied?

Mr. Mayhew: The allocations will go up somewhat in the next month or two, and we are anxious to do all we can, but there are grave administrative and accommodation difficulties to be overcome in Germany.

Mr. King: Is this not far too small a percentage? Is it not also a fact that for every one repatriated on compassionate grounds, someone else who would otherwise be repatriated is held back?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, but we have a very fair machine for the compassionate releases. We have sent over 4,000 back, and on the whole we can be proud of what we have done.

Mr. Lipson: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind what compassionate release meant to the men in our own Forces in certain circumstances and also bear in mind that the German prisoners of war have very similar feelings?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir; I do appreciate that warmly.

Mr. Driberg: Although my hon. Friend says, "Yes, Sir"—that somebody else has to be held back every time there is a compassionate repatriation—is it not the case that these compassionate repatriations are over and above the 15,000 a month ordinary repatriations? Can my hon. Friend enlighten us?

Mr. Mayhew: I am afraid that I should need notice of that question.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Would my hon. Friend consider altering the machinery so that applications made direct by prisoners of war in this country could be considered without using the present set-up in Germany for the purpose?

Mr. Mayhew: We have recently reformed the set-up, but I will certainly bear that suggestion in mind.

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the urgent need to secure the moral as well as the economic restoration of Europe, he will take measures to advance the final date for the repatriation of prisoners of war in British hands.

Mr. Mayhew: The rate of repatriation of German prisoners of war in British hands has to be determined in relation to the essential work being carried out by prisoners of war both in the United Kingdom and the Middle East, the availability of transport, and not least the capacity of Germany to absorb returning prisoners of war without dislocation. His Majesty's Government would be very glad to in crease

the rate of repatriation it these three factors permitted it, but this has not hitherto been the case. The question is continually under review.

Mr. Paget: Is it not a fact that the rate of entry of Baltic displaced persons has had to be decreased because they cannot be put into employment quickly enough, and could not the rate of repatriation of Germans be accelerated to allow the Baits to be released?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not know about the particular reference to Baltic displaced persons but certainly that is a factor which is being borne in mind.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman take care that no pressure is brought to bear on Germans who have to return to the Russian controlled zone and are very reluctant to do so?

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Is not the rate of repatriation from the Middle East very much behind schedule, and is something being done to bring it up to its proper rate?

Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask whether the Foreign Secretary has yet considered dropping the first of the three factors referred to by the Under-Secretary? Is it not high time that that factor was dropped out of the calculations? May we have an answer to that?

Mr. Mayhew: That raises a big principle, but I can say that we have not dropped that factor yet.

Mr. Driberg: With regard to the last factor, the capacity to absorb these prisoners in Germany, is it not the case that the Control Commission authorities believe that double the present number per month could be absorbed?

Mr. Mayhew: We are making inquiries on that point at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDONESIA (NON-COMBATANT AIRCRAFT)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affiairs what steps he is taking in relation to the action of the


Dutch military aeroplane which, on 2qth July, shot down and killed several British subjects flying near Jogjakarta in a non-combatant aircraft carrying medical supplies.

Mr. Mayhew: Reports have been called for from all available sources regarding this unhappy incident but full particulars are still lacking and I am therefore not in a position to state what action is contemplated. It has, however, been established that the aircraft in question has Indian registration and the Government of India have, therefore, been supplied with all our available information.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH LEGATION, CUBA (FLAG)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Union Jack was specially hoisted over the building which houses the Chancery of the British Legation at Havana, Cuba, on 18th July, on the anniversary of the rebellion against the Spanish Republic; and whether he will look into this matter and state the steps he is taking against this flouting of His Majesty's Government's attitude to the Franco regime.

Mr. Mayhew: The flag was flown in accordance with the local diplomatic custom, as on all other national days. This was an act of diplomatic convention, and has no political significance.

Mr. Piratin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this was a particular occasion when the Spanish representative in Havana was celebrating the initiation of the rebellion by Franco and his colleagues in July, 1936, and is that the kind of event our Legation in Cuba should be celebrating?

Mr. Mayhew: This is a trifling formality. If it had had any political consequences, we should certainly not have done it.

Mr. Eden: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that His Majesty's representatives abroad will never be asked to make a selection from the historic events which foreign countries celebrate?

FOOD SUPPLIES

Bacon (Exports)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Minister of Food why, in view of the shortage of bacon in this country, it is still his policy to export quantities abroad.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): Apart from small quantities to Malta and Gibraltar, exports of bacon are not and will not be allowed until supplies are greatly improved.

Fish Auctions (Labelled Boxes)

Mr. D. Marshall: asked the Minister of Food, if he will take steps to ensure at the first auction boxes of fish are so labelled that they show whether the fish contained comes from the near, middle or distant waters, and the date upon which the fish was caught.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. The hon. Member's suggestion, even were it practicable, would be most difficult to enforce. It would be of little help to first-hand buyers, who know the origin and approximate catching date of the fish for sale, and the identity of the fish would be lost at subsequent stages of distribution.

Orange Juice (Channel Islands)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Food how much orange juice bought by his Department has been exported to the Channel Islands; what was the cost of that orange juice to this country; what was the price charged by this country; and whether it was stipulated that orange juice supplied to the Channel Islands should be sold only at controlled prices and on a priority basis.

Dr. Summerskill: From October, 1945, to the end of July, 1947, the Channel Islands were supplied with 335¼ gross bottles of orange juice. They were charged £3,416 which was the cost of production. The arrangements were made on the understanding that they would be distributed to the same priority classes as in Great Britain, but at un-subsidised prices.

Mr. Greenwood: Is my hon. Friend aware that although adequate supplies of orange juice are available on the Islands, they are only available at the price of 1s. 10d. a bottle, which is far in excess


of what many working-class families can afford to pay? Will she insist, in further negotiations with the authorities, that although we want to do everything possible to help, further supplies must be conditional on the operation of a fair scheme?

Dr. Summerskill: I think my hon. Friend has forgotten that the Channel Islands are self-governing, and that we cannot insist upon these things.

Mr. Greenwood: Is my hon. Friend aware that we can refuse to sell these commodities unless we get satisfactory undertakings?

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES REPORT (PERSONAL STATEMENT)

Mr. Walkden: With your permission, Sir, for which I am extremely grateful, I crave the indulgence of the House to make a personal statement.
Since reviewing the OFFICIAL REPORT of Thursday last and the Questions and Answers referring to the Report of the Committee of Privileges, I feel it to be right and honourable that I should inform the House that I am the Member of Parliament referred to by the Editor and the political correspondent of the London "Evening News."
I make this very frank statement, Mr. Speaker, because I am profoundly concerned that suspicion would, until this matter is resolved, rest on all my party colleagues. It was not until I read the Report of the Committee of Privileges that I fully realised the interpretations which were being placed upon my actions. I must explain to the House that the essence of my relationship with the "Evening News" was in acting in a purely advisory capacity to Mr. Stanley Dobson over a wide range of political issues and industrial matters. In point of fact, my friendship with Mr. Stanley Dobson dates back many years to the time when he was the political correspondent of the "News Chronicle,"but no question of payment here ever arose. May I also make it quite clear that apart from a feature article, I have never written one single line of any of the newspaper reports of the London "Evening News." I have, of course, written several feature articles in the past for such newspapers as

the "Star," the "Daily Herald," the "Daily Mirror," the "Yorkshire Evening Post" and the "Yorkshire Evening News," but in each case they were signed articles and bear my name.
The House will be aware that it is quite a common practice for Members of Parliament of all parties to discuss the political issues of the day with Lobby correspondents as a normal routine matter. I have always understood that Lobby correspondents piece together information gained from many sources before writing their stories. In the course of their work, they have to do a considerable amount of cross-checking. It was on this basis, quite recently, Mr. Speaker, that I entered into an arrangement with the "Evening News" under which I was invited to give frequent guidance on a wide range of political and industrial subjects, to which party meetings were, of course, only incidental, but there was no change in the subject matter as a result of the payment. When I read the Report of the Committee of Privileges, I was surprised to find that what appeared to me as a legitimate transaction had been deemed by the Committee to be in the nature of bribery. No such interpretation had ever occurred to me or, I am sure, either to Mr. Schofield or Mr. Dobson.
So far as meetings of the Parliamentary Labour Party are concerned, it was only after garbled and very biased reports appeared in the "Evening Standard" that I took the opportunity, when approached for guidance by Mr. Dobson, to try to render to him a little advice which would enable the "Evening News" to present a more balanced account of the proceedings without giving away anything of an essential or secret nature, but by no means was I consulted after every party meeting. Mr. Dobson and Mr. Schofield have, by refusing to disclose my name, preserved a journalistic confidence, but I feel I cannot allow either of them to shield me in this matter. If any offence, either apparent or pronounced, may appear to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to have been committed by myself, I humbly beg to apologise to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, without any reservation whatever.
Now the small income which I received over about eight months I reported


quite openly to an Income Tax official when I called at Sutton in May last and discussed my returns and it will, of course, be taxed in the normal manner. I had no reason not to disclose it.
Finally, I again repeat, if only completely to absolve my party colleagues from undeserved suspicion, I submit to the House this personal explanation. Beating in mind that I have nearly 40 years membership of the Labour party, Mr. Speaker, and have been six and a half years a Member of this House, I am sure hon. Members will quite understand how much I feel my present position, as well as the depth of my feeling, and the feeling of regret, that this connection was ever entered into, especially now when I realise the interpretation that can be placed upon it. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for affording me this opportunity to make this explanation, and whatever course of action the House may choose to take, I can do no other than leave the judgment of my conduct to be determined by the House and my friends everywhere.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move:
That the statement made by Mr. Walkden be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Speaker: I ought to ask the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) whether he has anything further to say now. If not, it is usual for the hon. Member to withdraw.

Mr. Walkden: Nothing whatever to say, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Then perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw?

The hon. Member then withdrew.

Mr. Eden: I desire only formally to second the Motion moved by the Leader of the House.

Earl Winterton: I do not want to oppose the Motion which is a very proper one, but it is necessary to make one point clear. The question of whether or not a private meeting of hon. Members with strangers, Press or others as the case may be, held within the precincts of the House is covered by privilege was, as the Report says, the subject of controversy in the Committee, and two of my right hon. Friends and myself on this Bench have

tabled an Amendment disagreeing with the opinion——

Mr. Speaker: I must interrupt the noble Lord. I cannot see what that has to do with this Motion. When we discuss the Report of the Committtee of Privileges, to which the noble Lord and his right hon. Friend have two Amendments down, we surely shall discuss them then. We cannot deal with it now.

Earl Winterton: What I was going to say—and I am sorry you did not permit me to finish as I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is in Order—was that it must not be taken that, because we assent to this Motion, it in any way prevents us from acting at a later stage. You have answered my question, Mr. Speaker, by saying that it is perfectly open to us to act at a later stage, but it must not be taken as in any way prejudicing our right and as necessarily agreeing that the hon. Member has committed a breach of Privilege.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I only interrupt to ask the Leader of the House to make it clear that something else also is not prejudiced by the Motion he has just moved, namely, the important question of principle involved in the special Report, which has nothing to do with other personal questions that are involved.

Mr. H. Morrison: On the noble Lord's point, Mr. Speaker, which you have dealt with, we are in no way prejudiced on the point he makes; that must be dealt with when the Report comes forward. In regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), there was a special Report which affects the unwillingness which they were permitted to have a right to by the Committee of Privileges at that stage—the unwillingness on the part of the Editor of the "Evening News" and the political correspondent to divulge the name. If what has happened this afternoon had not taken place, it would have been a matter for consideration as to what the House would have done about that matter. It may still be. What I think probable is that the Committee of Privileges, in examining the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden), will at the same time consider anew the situation vis-à-vis the Editor and the political correspondent of the "Evening News."

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman cannot give instructions to the Committee.

Mr. Morrison: I am not doing so. I wish the noble Lord, having been rather precipitate himself, would let me say a word.

Earl Winterton: I wish to raise a point of Order. I would like to know whether it is in Order for the Leader of the House to suggest to the Committee of Privileges how it should proceed. I raise that as a point of Order.

Mr. Speaker: I did not gather that the Leader of the House was suggesting that. He was only stating what might be a hypothetical course.

Mr. Morrison: I should be very sorry if any heat were to be engendered. I am most anxious there should not be. It is a painful business anyway. A point has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne on which he is entitled to some comment, and all I am saying is that it would be perfectly competent, if they were so minded, for the Committee of Privileges to consider that aspect of the matter. I do not think the House is called upon to deal with it at this particular point.

Mr. Silverman: I am sorry if I appear over persistent about this, but I think many hon. Members regard the question of principle raised in the special Report as of even greater importance than the personal questions in the main Report and would be sorry to agree to a Motion this afternoon if it were to have the effect of depriving the House of Commons of jurisdiction in the matters raised in the special Report. I wish to ask your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether, that special Report having been made to the House of Commons, the House of Commons ought not to have an opportunity of dealing with it on its merits, quite apart from the other Report?

Mr. Speaker: A Report having been made to the House of Commons, the only people who can deal with it are the House of Commons, and that Report is bound to come here. There may eventually be some recommendations altering it—I do not know—but the Report is bound to come here and an opportunity will be accorded the House for its consideration and this does not prejudice the matter in the slightest.

Mr. Eden: All we are doing, as I understand it in supporting the Leader of the House, is referring to the Committee of Privileges what results from the words used by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden), and that is all. The results of any previous resolution or any future action of the Committee will come back to this House, which remains master of the situation.

Mr. H. Morrison: If I may say so, I entirely agree. That is so, and we shall see what the future holds, including what the Committee of Privileges report.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the statement made by Mr. Walkden be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

BILL PRESENTED

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AND PHARMACISTS BILL

"to make provision for the registration as medical practitioners or as pharmacists of certain persons having qualifications, other than the United Kingdom qualifications required by the Medical Acts and the Pharmacy Acts, and to repeal certain provisions as to pharmacists in that behalf,"presented by Mr. Bevan; supported by Mr. Ede, Mr. Westwood and Mr. John Edwards; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered:
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Supplementary Estimates for New Services may be considered and Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply of 31st July shall have been agreed to before half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (7) of Standing

Division No. 353.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Dobbie, W.
Kinley, J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Dodds, N. N.
Lavers, S.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Alpass, J. H.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lee. Miss J. (Cannock)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Leonard, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Dye, S.
Leslie, J. R.


Attewell, H. C.
Edelman, M.
Lever, N. H


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Levy, B. W.


Austin, H. Lewis
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lewis, A W. J. (Upton)


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Ayles, W. H.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lindgren, G. S.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lipson, D. L.


Baird, J.
Ewart, R.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Balfour, A.
Farthing W. J.
Longden, F.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Fernyhough, E
Lyne, A. W


Barstow. P. G
Field, Captain W. J.
McAdam, W.


Barton, C.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McEntee, V. La T.


Battley, J. R.
Follick, M.
McGhee, H. G


Bechervaise, A. E.
Foot, M. M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Belcher, J. W.
Forman, J. C.
McLeavy, F.


Berry, H
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E (Wandsworth, C.)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Bing, G. H. C.
Gibbins, J.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Binns, J.
Gibson, C. W
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Blackburn, A. R
Gilzean, A.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Blyton, W R
Goodrich, H E
Marquand, H. A.


Bowden, Flg.-Oftr. H. W.
Gordon,-Walker, P. C
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Bowen, R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mathers, G.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)
Mayhew, C. P.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Grenfell, D. R.
Mikardo, Ian


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mitchison, G. R


Bramall, E. A.
Gunter, R. J.
Monslow, W


Brook. D. (Halifax)
Guy, W. H.
Moody, A. S.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morley, R.


Bruce, Major D. W. T
Hale, Leslie
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Buchanan, G
Hall, W. G
Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (L'wish'm, E.)


Burden, T. W.
Hamilton, Lt -Col. R
Moyle, A.


Burke, W. A.
Hardman, D. R.
Murray, J. D.


Byers, Frank
Hardy, E. A.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford N.)


Chamberlain, R. A
Harrison, J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Champion, A. J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Chater, D.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Oliver, G. H.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Grbach, M.


Cluse, W. S.
Hicks, G.
Paget, R. T.


Cobb, F. A.
Holman, P.
Palmer, A M F


Cocks, F. S.
House, G.
Parkin, B. T.


Coldrick, W.
Hoy, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Collick, P.
Hubbard, T
Pearson, A.


Collins, V. J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Piratin, P


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)
Platts-Mills, J F. F.


Cook, T. F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Porter, E (Warrington)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Irving, W. J.
Price, M. Philips


Corvedale, Viscount
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Cove, W. G.
Jay, D. P. T.
Proctor, W. T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Pursey, Cmdr H.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Ranger, J.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Rees-Williams, D. R


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Reeves, J.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Keenan, W.
Reid T. (Swindon)


Deer, G.
Kenyon, C.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Key, C. W.
Robens, A.


Diamond, J.
King, E. M
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Order No. 14, as modified by the Order made upon 12th November.—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 71.

Rogers, G. H. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Stross, Dr S
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Royle, C.
Stubbs, A. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Sargood, R
Summerskill Dr
Wilkes, L.


Scollan, T.
Sylvester, G. 0.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Scott-Elliot, W
Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Segal, Dr S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, Rt. Hon T. (Don Valley)


Shackleton, E A. A.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Shurmer, P.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Willis, E.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilson, J. H


Skeffington, A. M
Tiffany, S.
Wise, Major F. J


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Titterington, M. F
Woodburn, A


Skinnard, F. W.
Tolley, L.
Woods, G. S


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wyatt, W.


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Yates, V. F.


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Viant, S. P.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Snow, Capt. J. W.
Wadsworth, G.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Sorensen, R. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Zilliacus, K.


Soskice, Maj. Sir
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E)



Sparks, J. A.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stamford, W
Weitzman, D.
Mr. Simmons and


Stephen, C
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Mr. Hannon.


Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)





NOES.


Baldwin, A. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Noble, Comdr A. H. P.


Baxter, A. B.
Gridley, Sir A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beamish, Maj. T V H
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Pickthorn, K.


Beechman, N. A.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Nigel
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hurd, A.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Challen, C,
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Channon, H
Legge-Bourka, Maj. E. A. H
Smith, E P (Ashford)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Smithers, Sir W.


Crowder, Capt. John E
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Darling, Sir W. Y
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


De la Bère, R.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Digby, S W
Mackeson, Brig H R
Teeling, William


Drayson, G. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)


Drewe, C
Macmillan, Rt Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Vane, W. M F.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Walker-Smith, D.


Duthie, W. S.
Marlowe, A. A. H
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A
Marples, A. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Molson, A. H E.



Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Major Conant and


Galbraith, Cmdr T D.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Major Ramsay.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[20th ALLOTTED DAY]

REPORT [31st July]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1947–48; NAVY, ARMY AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1947–48.

Resolution reported:
That a sum, not exceeding £53,473,794 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Germany and Austria for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, namely:


Civil Estimates, 1947–48



£


Class XI, Vote 1, Foreign Office
2,060,864


Class X, Vote 7, Foreign Office (German Section) (formerly Control Office for Germany and Austria)
51,412,930



£53,473,794

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Orders of the Day — GERMANY AND AUSTRIA

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: My right hon. and hon. Friends felt that it would not be right to bring this Session to an end without a full discussion upon the question of Germany. It is unfortunate that the management of our public business makes it necessary to have it upon a Bank Holiday, but it is also, by a strange coincidence, upon a date which is in the memory of many of us here in this House—4th August, 33 years ago—a date which many of us will never forget. Almost a year ago we held an important Debate upon Germany. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) opened it with a remarkable and impressive speech, which, I think, carried a great deal of weight on all sides of the House. On that occasion he said:
… it is undeniable that no clear-cut policy by His Majesty's Government has so far emerged or been enunciated, whatever the excuse may be.

He fortified himself with a quotation from the report of the Select Committee, which ran:
the Jack of a clear definition of our policy in Germany as a whole, as well as in the North West German zone,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1946; Vol. 426, c. 528.]
The then Chancellor of the Duchy said in reply:
I would ask those who are prepared to criticise that £80 million whether they suggest that we should give up the game altogether, and come out of Germany."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1946; Vol 426. 626.]
That was the Chancellor of the Duchy's reply a year ago. His Majesty's Government was then a going concern, more or less. The Minister was confident, even complacent, and on 28th February last, when we had another full Debate, the same hon. Gentleman presented a Supplementary Estimate for £39 million, still with considerable buoyancy. First, £80 million, then £39 million, not to mention, of course, the £58 million which had been squandered in the great currency racket. All, alas, a great strain upon our own resources and upon our dollar resources.
Then came the decision which we on this side of the House certainly welcomed, for we pressed for it, to transfer the Control Commission to the care of the Foreign Office. So the hon. Gentleman the then Chancellor of the Duchy was pensioned off—I mean that he became Minister of Pensions, much the same thing. But he can console himself, because like other greater men, he was ahead of his time. The general misconduct of affairs by His Majesty's Government may now force us to do the very thing which just a year ago he threw in our teeth as a taunt. I will quote his words again:
… give up the game altogether, and come out of Germany.
That is not merely because defeated Germany is bankrupt; it is because victorious Britain, after two years of Socialist Government, is now approaching bankruptcy herself. In these conditions, in today's conditions, it is a little difficult, without a certain unreality, to conduct today's Debate. We do not know what we shall be told the day after tomorrow. We do not know what effect the Government's decisions will have upon the question which we are debating today. Nevertheless, we must carry out


our task as well as we can, and we must assume that in some form or another, we shall have a continuing responsibility for German affairs.
There are some introductory remarks I would like to make before coming to my main argument on the broad problem. Conquerors have their rights, but apart from their interests, they cannot escape from their duties. It is fashionable today to attribute many of our difficulties to the formula, "Unconditional surrender." I would like to remind the House that, of course, all Members of the Coalition Government were equally committed to that formula. Personally, I am not very much impressed by the argument which attributes so much evil to this phrase. It was much misunderstood. For instance, it was my duty to be present at the unconditional surrender of an enemy country—now, I am happy to say, a friendly country. The surrender took place unconditionally in one sense, but in the first instance there were about a dozen conditions, and on the second attempt, there were about 40 highly complicated conditions. What unconditional surrender really meant was surrender on our own terms, without bargaining, without "higgling of the market."I must remind the House that the Prime Minister at that time, on 18th January, 1945, made this declaration:
The enforcement of unconditional surrender upon the enemy in no way relieves the victorious Powers of their obligations to humanity, or of their duties as civilised and Christian nations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1945; Vol. 407, c. 424.]
It is not so much what we say during a war; it is what we do after the war that matters.

Mr. Paget: Would it not have n a great deal easier and would it not have saved an awful lot of suffering, if at that time we had said what were our terms, instead of talking about unconditional surrender?

Mr. Macmillan: I have explained that unconditional surrender meant not that there should be no conditions—one cannot have a document of surrender without pages of conditions—but that we were not prepared to bargain with the governors of Germany about conditions. To that, all the Members of the last Coalition are absolutely committed. I am only

trying to point out that I do not think that is what matters. It is deeds that matter. The ordinary people look to their standard of life, of employment, of food and of clothing. Those are very primitive needs which must be satisfied, as indeed we are now beginning to learn ourselves. If we cannot see that the people have these needs satisfied, a lot of talk about democracy, a new intellectual outlook, and re-education and all the rest of it seems to be rather hypocritical and rather false.
I am sure that now, at any rate, all hon. Members would agree that every humanitarian consideration requires a restoration of at least a reasonable standard of life in Germany. But, in addition, the breakdown of the Potsdam Agreement, and Russian expansionist policy for the last two years, make it necessary to strike a new political balance. Amid many dangers it is often necessary to choose the least. Militant Communism in Russia may become a serious menace or may become stabilised. Similarly, a revived militarism in Germany may be a future menace. It is not to be wondered at that the French, who three times have been the victims of German aggression, should wish to be quite sure that they will not have to suffer a fourth invasion. We must recognise that feeling in France and we must see that France has the reasonable guarantees which she deserves from our Allies in the old world and in the new.
If some would assess the dangers of militant Communism as the greater, and others would put the dangers of a revived militant Nazism as the greater, I think all must agree that the greatest danger of all would be an aggressive combination of the two, for we should always have that in our minds. Therefore, I say that the restoration of a reasonable standard of life in Germany is not only a duty but an interest of Western nations. A year ago, even a few months ago—I think even today—His Majesty's Government had no clear policy towards Germany. No answer was given to my right hon. Friend last year. Their policy seems to be one of drift in this, as in so many other affairs, and, as so often happens, drift turns to panic.

Mr. Bowles: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that he


was present at another unconditional surrender, namely that of Italy. He also referred to his leader's remarks. May I ask him whether he remembers that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) at that time, talking about the Italians, said, "We will let them stew in their own juice and then heat it up for them"?

Mr. Macmillan: This was in 1945 while he was the head of the Coalition administration. Therefore, I suppose that represented the policy of the Coalition administration. Many reasons have been given for the heavy drain of this immense expenditure—nearly £120 million in all. The responsible Minister told us last year that the heavy expenditure was due to the non-implementation of the Potsdam Agreement and the failure to sign the Austrian Treaty. It has, surely, been obvious for over a year that the quadripartite arrangements between the great Powers were not going to succeed. Of course, I know that at the General Election there was a popular and, I have no doubt, effective cry that said:
Only a Socialist Government in Britain will be able to get on with a Communist Government in Russia. You have only to get rid of Churchill and Eden, and Stalin and Molotov will come eating out of your hands.
This was only intended to deceive the electors. Surely, Ministers cannot have been so naïve as to have been taken in by it themselves.
Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) said last February, the reason for the present state of Germany, and the reason for the immense dollar expenditure in Germany, is that the economic life of Germany has been reduced to a state approaching paralysis. The Government have succeeded in reducing the British zone of defeated Germany to an even greater degree of the frozen unworkable and dazed economy which His Majesty's Ministers have been trying to pin upon victorious Britain. The tragedy is that they are succeeding even beyond the nightmares of most of us. I do not know whether any hon. Members have read a very illuminating article by Mr. Maxwell Stamp in the "Lloyds Bank Review." It confirms a great deal of information which my hon. Friends and I have received from a great number of other sources. It is very well documented, it is objective and factual. I think it is

clear to anyone who reads this article that it contains a certain number of lessons which we might do well to ponder over and apply ourselves.
Industrial production in Germany fell by the end of 1946 to 35 per cent. of prewar production. I am speaking of the British and American zones only. By February, 1947, it had fallen to 25 per cent. of prewar. The production of consumer goods, which in October, 1946, was running at about 23 per cent. of prewar, was, by the winter, reduced practically to zero. The food production of the zone is only sufficient, if it stood alone, to supply about 1,000 calories per person. Therefore, the double pressure to which we are so sadly accustomed—the shortage of food, which leads to low production, and the shortage of consumer goods, which leads to an unwillingness of the farmers to grow or to part with their food—all this vicious circle is going on at full swing.
There has been complete breakdown of any incentive in Germany, and that is perhaps the most serious thing of all. We are now beginning to learn that, whereas control may be and is a convenient way of mitigating a shortage, control cannot itself cure a shortage. Only more production can cure a shortage, and it must be worth somebody's while to produce. At the present time, the possession of money, practically speaking, gives no title to goods or services The distribution of goods, of course, is based upon a ration or upon proof of need, and, therefore, there is no incentive to earn money. In theory, the only absolutely free market in Germany under the control is that for postage stamps and that for antiques. The denazification of the German population is going on with the immense cumbrous machine of the Control Commission; the nazification of the German economic system is being maintained and made even stronger, but without the ruthless police force which is the only method of making such a system actually work.
There has been no currency reform for over two years. A year ago, it would have been comparatively simple, because there were goods and services which were available to match that currency. There is a vast mass of accumulated savings in terms of money, which are competing with current wages. This mass of accumulated


money savings in German hands is in competition with wages and earnings for the reduced quantity of goods and services available. Even the black market does not afford a great outlet, for the present price of ten cigarettes on the black market is a month's work at present value, while a woollen overcoat is a year's work for the ordinary wage-earner. At the same time, the entrepreneur is strangled with controls, and his incentive really is to retain his stocks of raw materials and not manufacture goods, because he would only get more of this money that he was not allowed to use, and because of taxation, which, in some cases, is 100 per cent. or more.
The price-fixing machinery is still centred in the Control Commission in Berlin, and is very slow in its movements, and, of course, by a strange paradox, the more important the commodity, the greater the time it takes to get the necessary approval from the cumbrous mechanism in order to adjust prices to costs. Even in the bi-zonal agencies, far too much attention is paid to local interests. We must be very careful, while we may want a politically federalised Germany, that we do not get such a break-up of Germany into more or less self-contained economic units as to Balkanise Germany. We have had our lessons from the last war of the economic unit, and, therefore, political federalism must be combined with economic coordination and unity. Nor is this rigid system of control really effective. It is estimated that only about half the total production of the Anglo-American zone reaches the markets, and that the rest is somewhere squandered away in the various forms of black market.
Two years have gone. The position today is worse than it was at the end of the war. It is worse than it was a year ago, and it is steadily deteriorating. I admit, and I think we all do, that there have been weaknesses in the administrative machine. There have been weaknesses of personnel, especially in the lower ranks, but at the same time, there have been some outstanding officers serving there; for instance. Sir Brian Robertson, whose work was well-known to me when he was Chief of Staff on the "Q" side under Field-Marshal Alexander, an officer who conducted a long and difficult campaign with conspicuous success. I think the

root of the trouble is not in the personnel in Germany. It is that there has been no really strong direction from London and Whitehall. In spite of our preoccupations over a great field, from which we cannot take our thoughts with our own crusts, we must now act.
There are certain principles of action which I would like to put forward for the consideration of the Government. The first is that a practical policy can no longer be mainly concerned with trying to create a united Eastern and Western Germany. We must recognise that partition now de facto. I would not recognise it de jure. I would not take it as a British or an American responsibility for the division of Germany into two parts; certainly, we must not be blamed before German eyes; but, from the economic point of view, I think we must recognise it. Nor can we retard, or take any steps to bring to an end, the Allied Control Commission in Berlin. It has a very restricted value, but I would not allow it to be impeded. So long as it is in being, it provides us with some contact with Eastern Europe and some machinery for a change should Russian policy itself change. We keep it alive, and, in my opinion, we should keep it alive.
Next, the British, American, and French zones must be joined together into some effective and workable whole, and, since only the Americans can provide the capital in Western Germany, the inclusion of Western Germany in the preparation of Europe's proposals under the Marshall Plan produces a new opportunity to Ministers which I trust will not be lost. The economic interdependence of Western Germany and Europe must be recognised. The Ruhr, the Saar, Lorraine and Luxembourg are interdependent, and, together, they form the greatest industrial unit in the world. Together, if they are prosperous, all Europe will prosper, and, if they decay, all Europe withers. International capitalism at last recognises this fact, whatever may be the opinions of hon. Members opposite, and perhaps international Communism may do the same. National Socialism or social democracy, on a national or cantonal basis, would be wholly disruptive of European economy.
Next, within the European structure, Germany must be made what I believe is now called an economically viable State,


in the sense that she must be capable of buying necessary food with her industrial products. The last principle which I put forward, and one which I profoundly believe to be true, is that the French people, historically and morally, hold the key position. They can make or mar any scheme which is put forward. Anglo-American diplomacy must see that the French are brought into the picture from the start; it must overcome French apprehensions and restore and win French confidence. There has been a regrettable tendency, which is really a kind of hangover from the events of 1940, when French power was temporarily eclipsed, to leave out France, or treat her as of secondary importance. That phase is, or should be, now ended, and France must be treated as an equal partner in these undertakings.

Mr. Lipson: Could the right hon. Gentleman make quite clear how the policy which he is enunciating differs from that which the Government are at present following?

Mr. Macmillan: It differs from that which the Government have so far enunciated, but if the Government accept it at the end of this Debate, or in the course of it, I, of course, shall be very pleased. But for two years we have not had it.
If these principles are accepted by the Government then, I think, other things will follow, which I hope I shall be allowed to put before the House. They fall into three different categories—moral, political and economic. Under the moral category, we must, in my view—I do not know whether the Government accept it—put a time limit to denazification, and a large number of people who have been dealt with under that category must he readmitted to German life. One of the great troubles there is lack of administrative capacity both in industry and local government. One of the reasons of industrial indiscipline is the fear of denunciation which is still a kind of poison running right through the management and organisation of German life. Secondly, the trials of the German war criminals, and those in the arrestable categories, should be brought to a speedy end. Thirdly, the penalising of relatives, which is, I think, a most barbarous rule, must cease. The war prisoners must be returned with far greater expedition for,

after all, they are, at least, able-bodied men who can help to equalise the large number of old and young refugees whom we have to accept in the zone. At the same time, of course, great pressure should be placed on the Polish Government to prevent the flow of refugees, which is a continual embarrassment to the British and American zones.
There is one thing I would like to say on the subject of propaganda. I have very little experience of what used to be called by the British "political," and by the Americans "psychological" warfare. Whether it is any good in war, I am not sure, but I certainly doubt its efficacy in peace, and, in any case, the propaganda that we are putting forward at the present time, should, in my view, be Allied; it should be objective and it should be restrained, and, if it is possible, it should retain a good deal of humility and a little humour.
Now I come to the political changes which I would like to recommend. I believe that, somehow, we must get back to a complete integrated headquarters and to an integrated regional staff. An integrated headquarters alone will not do. Let us reconstitute S.H.A.E.F.—which was only broken up to please the Russians—and the headquarters, and the responsibility which is British, American and French. I had a little experience at an Allied Force headquarters, and, in my view, an integrated staff, with its combined loyalties, is quite different from the occasional conferences of independent authorities. Unless people live together, work together, and, sometimes, play together, they do not really get that full understanding of each other's point of view, and that is the only way to run a reorganisation of the zones. It might even be possible—I do not know whether it would—to persuade General Eisenhower to undertake this task as a further work he might do for Europe. He is a man who would command the absolute confidence of the British and the French.
Germany must govern herself to a far greater extent than she is being allowed to do at present. From top to bottom, from the federal top, which, I suggest, should be at Frankfurt, to the much smaller regional councils and county councils, there must be real self-government. The traditional boundaries of Germany should be revised, as far as possible.
Regional patriotism should be allowed to flourish, but it should not be allowed to lead to economic separation. The Germans must be responsible, and must be made to feel responsible. In spite of a good deal of progress which has taken place, I fully recognise that in the local sphere, and even up to the land system, there are far too many reserved subjects, and far too many British officers in our zone in a parallel position to that of the German functionaries. That prevents any real responsibility—any sense of the transfer of responsibility. There is too much control and there are too many officials. No British or Allied officer or man should, in my view, be used to do what can be done by a German. The administration is too cumbrous.
A year ago there were 42,000 officials in the British zone alone. Later, there were 26,000, and, according to the last figure given in the Debate of 1st April, there were 20,000. The Allies should become not governors, but a small body of expert advisers, especially powerful, of course, where the question of imports of food, raw materials or machinery are concerned. The military forces can be reduced. Our real authority depends not on the soldiers there, but on the economic sanctions, on the realisation of the fact that without the imports which are sanctioned by America and Britain, Germany cannot live. That, I think, would be all that is necessary, and such a course we shall, in any case, probably have to adopt because of our own immediate difficulties. There should be no interference, and, above all, no preference or favouritism shown to German political parties.
After the last war, we tried to force liberalism upon the Weimar Republic, and we killed both liberalism and the Weimar Republic because they became associated with defeat and dishonour in Germany. In the same way, if we now try to force social democracy upon the Germans they will react as soon as they are free to do so. We must not try to force nationalisation of industry, or any particular scheme or hobby upon them. In my view, one of the great advantages——

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will not the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind and agree that the German political parties, as they exist in Germany, have

expressed a preference for socialisation in regard, for example, to the Ruhr industries?

Mr. Macmillan: Certain expressions have been made in the British zone, but I have not seen any evidence of the same in the American zone. One of the great advantages of the fusion of the zones would be that the British and American points of view would both be brought to bear on this problem, and a reasonable compromise would be reached. In my view, the Americans are rather too averse from what we call "planning," but we, also, are too keen to press our own particular nostrum. Out of the marrying of the British and American zones, we would reach a very reasonable conclusion, based upon the object of making the industries work, rather than the pressing of our particular political views upon them. There is one further point which I would beg the Government to take into account. They should be very careful about the arguments used in favour of what is called land reform. If land reform merely means following the political purpose of breaking up the large landed estates, it may easily result in a far greater difficulty in getting an agricultural surplus from the small farms which will follow, and that is common knowledge to anyone who has seen that sort of thing in any part of the world.
Finally, on the economic issues I have already given a rapid survey of what is wrong. Since, in the expressive words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford, we must accept the fact that Russia has the food and we have the mouths, we must also accept the fact that Western Germany with its swollen population, requires more industrialisation and not less. Therefore, factory removals for reparations must stop at once. We asked this a year ago. We were told that these removals had stopped. I am now told on the very highest authority that they are still continuing. All we are told is that some other agreement has been made. But agreements which are made multilaterally should be kept multilaterally, and I think this removal of factories should be stopped immediately.
The other reason for the dismantling of plant, not on the ground of reparations but on the ground of dangerous war potential, is, in my view, being interpreted


far too widely, and the time has come to re-examine the question and to narrow considerably the category of plant and industry which can be removed on that basis. I recognise, as we all must recognise, that some sections of British opinion—both master and man, employers and employed—may fear the competitive pressure of German exports in the future. But it must be remembered that there are risks in everything in life, and I am convinced that the risk of a total European collapse presents a greater danger today to British economy as a whole.
There must be an immediate currency and taxation reform. It is long overdue. No healthy return can be made without it. There must be a re-introduction of incentive into German life, and, as far as possible, a freer German economy. Last of all, in Germany, as in Britain, no revival can take place apart from an increase in the output of coal. There is no argument about that. We must have a practical working system, and this can only be done by a complete integration of the Anglo-American-French control. Meanwhile, food and raw materials are required, and only America can provide those. But the export of coal should be most carefully scrutinised. Of course, we all recognise the prior claims of France, Belgium and Holland, but the more effective utilisation of German coal in the. light of, and as part of, a co-ordinated organisation for European production is essential if we are to have any chance of implementing the Marshall plan.
To sum up, it appears to us on this side of the House that the Government cannot escape censure for the weakness and indecision of their policy towards Germany, and for the consequent ineffectiveness of the administration of the British zone. As I have said, I prefer to place the responsibility where it lies—upon responsible Ministers, and not upon their servants or officers. There are many distinguished officers who have been charged with the unwelcome and difficult tasks which we have in Germany. Military officers, in my short experience, do not find it easy to carry out these novel functions in the politico-economic field, and they cannot really do so effectively unless they have adequate directives and day-to-day consultations with responsible Ministers.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why he is anxious to re-establish S.H.A.E.F. and General Eisenhower, when he so disparages the capacity of military leaders in this economic and political sphere?

Mr. Macmillan: Because under that system, both at A.F.H.Q. and at S.H.A.E.F., General Eisenhower had on his staff a British representative of Cabinet rank, and an officer of ambassadorial rank representing the President of the United States, and that is the system which I am advocating.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Was not the skill of General Eisenhower and his staff directed to destroying the morale and the industry of the enemy?

Mr. Macmillan: I did not quite hear that. What I was trying to say was that day-to-day consultation is so important, and I always thought that we ought to have a resident Cabinet Minister in Germany. There is a very great difference between occasional visits, and the Minister actually living and working in the whole atmosphere of the headquarters. I was very shocked to find that the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had suddenly been brought back to deal with a Debate about some matter or other in another place. It was as if I had flown back from the Mediterranean in the middle of the war to take part in a Debate on town and country planning. For 18 months we had a junior Minister at Norfolk House. That has now been partly remedied, but I still do not think the Foreign Office has the power, authority or knowledge to carry out all these necessary functions without the appointment of a Minister such as I have described.
I feel that the close daily co-operation that we had between America and Great Britain in the war—a flexible comradeship upon which the success of war was based—has passed. It may be impossible wholly to reconstitute that position; it was based largely upon the personality of the Roosevelt-Churchill combination. Nevertheless, through all these months we seem to have been drifting along, rudderless, without a clear purpose and without any sure chance of landfall. Yet upon the solution of this German problem, with which is bound up the whole of the European problem, largely


depends our own power to overcome the storms which threaten our country today. Even at this late hour I say: Let us put aside indecision and procrastination, and give to Europe and to ourselves the leadership by which alone the tortured world can be rescued from impending disaster.

Mr. Paget: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, I would like to ask him one question. He made a serious charge that the relatives of political prisoners were being victimised. Could he tell us what he meant by that?

Mr. Macmillan: I think I referred to the penalising of the relatives of prisoners as well as of the prisoners themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I refer to unemployability, and so forth.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Edelman: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) was himself during the war a distinguished example of a Minister Resident who managed to work with our Allies in dealing with a conquered country in the interests both of the Allies and of the defeated enemy. But today I was disappointed, in listening to him, to find that, although he made many suggestions for the administration of Germany, he nevertheless failed utterly to deal with the critical economic problem which faces us there today. We all know that this winter in Germany is going to be a grim and ugly one. It is going to be a winter which, both for the Germans and for the occupying Powers, will be even more difficult to live through than last winter. The reason is that during this coming winter we at home will be faced with our own crisis: we shall have difficulty in feeding our own people, and the problem of feeding the Germans will be correspondingly greater.
I should like today to recall a sentence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), when he said early in this Parliament that the problem of Germany would not be to keep Germany down but to keep Germany up; and that is the major difficulty which faces us today. The great problem which the Foreign Secretary has to confront, and with which the Ministers who represent him have to deal, is the basic fact that today the economy of our zone, even when

fused with that of the Americans, is an unnatural one. Germany has been split in two, and the section which we have to deal with is a section which can be self-supporting only if it reaches an export figure of £250 million—about the total exports which were exported from that region before the war. Now, if we compare that figure with the current exports of Germany, we shall find that there is a most grave disparity. During the first five months of the year the exports from our own zone in Germany have reached only the figure of £12 million; and even if we increase the level of industry in our zone I cannot possibly see how we can raise our exports within the next five—even within the next ten—years to a degree which will enable our fused zones to be self-supporting.
Consequently, it is quite clear that, for a long time to come, the fused zones of Western Germany will have to depend on the charity either of Great Britain or of America, or of both. We ourselves have entered into vast dollar commitments for Germany. We have already provided over £180 million for food and for our Army of Occupation. In the coming year, that figure may be reduced to something like £100 million. Then, on top of that, in the next three years, in order to revitalise Germany industry, we have undertaken to expend something like £125 million in the fused zones, in order to give an injection of capital goods and raw materials to German industry. I would therefore ask today whether it is the intention of my right hon. Friend in the coming year to provide all of the sum which is required to sustain the Germans from the point of view of feeding them and stimulating their industry.
If we are to undertake that burden, we shall have to pay for the food and for those services very largely in dollars; and we shall have to make that contribution at a time when we ourselves have been considerably enfeebled. Consequently, as I listened today to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley attributing all the difficulties of the present situation to the shortcomings of His Majesty's Government, I could not help feeling that, even if we had deputed, as he proposed, a Minister Resident to Germany, even if we had carried out in detail some of the excellent proposals he has made,


there would still remain the fundamental problem of our own limited dollar resources and the necessary expenditure of dollars in order to sustain Germany.
I want to suggest today that we should say quite frankly, to the Americans at Washington, that we are not in the position to feed Germany, and that we are not in the position to provide the dollars to stimulate German industry at a time when our own industry is in need of renovation and re-equipment. We must say that, I think, quite bluntly, and say to them that if they want to prevent that chaos in Western Germany which they fear, if they want to hold up the onward movement of Eastern Communism, then they must take a fair share of the burden of Germany. If we consider what the individual Briton and the individual American is contributing per head we find that, whereas per capita the individual Briton contributes something like £2 10s. per head to the sustenance of Germany, the individual American makes a contribution of only 15s. per head; and that seems to me to be an unequal sharing of the burden. If, in fact, we have a fused economic zone, if the benefits of that zone are to be equally distributed among the occupying Powers, it is only just that the burden of the zones should be shared equally by the occupying Powers; and, more than that, I believe that in the present critical situation the Americans should be called upon to provide as much food as Germany needs in order to maintain the nutritional standard of life which has been fixed for that country.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of coal. Now, it has been established in Germany—it has been established in the Ruhr—that the miner's productivity was a direct relationship to the amount of food that he eats. There is a definite graph of production which shows that increased production corresponds with an increased allocation of food. If we are to have the coal which is fundamental for the revitalising of German industry, the Ruhr miner must get more food. But, on top of that, he must also feel that he is taking part in the revival of Germany. The question of socialisation is not a matter of Socialists in this country advocating a political nostrum. I am quite sure that everyone who has been to the Ruhr and seen German life, is convinced that the

German coalminer does not want his coalmines to be turned back into the hands of those German industrialists who were the sponsors and the approvers and the sustainers of Hitlerism. The fact that today there is no central national Government in Germany does not mean that the coalmines in Germany should not be brought under public control. It is possible to socialise them. It is possible to invest the ownership of the property of the German coalmines in the Länder, and I believe that if that is done it will provide a tremendous boost to the morale of the German miners.
At the same time I do not think that nationalisation or even socialisation is, in itself, enough to give the Germans the feeling that they have themselves attained stability, or to give the neighbours of the Germans the feeling that they have won security. I am quite convinced that if, when Hitler came to power, the German coalmines and the iron and steel works had been nationalised, he would have had an even more effective weapon than he had at that time, when they were in private ownership. I feel it is fundamental that the control of the Ruhr should be in the hands of some international authority. In disposing of the question of the Ruhr, I suggest that ownership of the mines should remain in the hands of the Germans, but the actual administration and control of the Ruhr coal mines, and of the Ruhr heavy industries generally, should be in the hands of a consortium of the Allies. I believe that only in that way will it be possible to integrate the Ruhr economy effectively with the rest of Western Europe.
I would not dissent from what the right hon. Member for Bromley said when he spoke of the importance of our policy marching closely with that of France. One of Europe's great needs is to bring about the de-congestion of the Ruhr. It is of vital importance to Europe's security, and to obtaining a rational distribution of industry in Western Europe, that, instead of the old process of the coal of Lorraine moving to the Ruhr, that process should be reversed. The coal of the Ruhr should move into Lorraine. In other words, instead of heavy industry being concentrated in its present over emphatic form in the Ruhr, there should be a spreading


out of heavy industry, and we should no longer think of the Ruhr as the industrial heart of Europe, but of the whole complex of the industries of the Ruhr, Lorraine and the Saar.
One of the terrible things apparent to anyone who goes to Germany is that the people there have literally no confidence whatsoever in the currency. They regard it as being so much paper. For the last two years many of us in the House have pressed that there should be an effective currency reform in Germany, and I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what steps are being taken in order to bring it about. We must reduce the amount of paper in circulation. Today, unhappily, the primary producer is unwilling to sell his material or his product merely to obtain in exchange a currency in which he has no faith. The result of that is that there is a vast system of barter taking place in Germany, a system which completely eludes the control authorities, and which results in a complete lack of effective knowledge by the controlling power of what is going on in the economic life of Germany. I should, therefore, like to ask what steps are being taken in order to bring about an effective reform of the German currency.
My final point is this. Recently we have had a fusion of the machinery of government in the British and American zones. The result is that, instead of having two medium-sized cumbersome machines we now have one enormous cumbersome machine centred in Frankfurt. It is a machine which has too many drivers and too many brakes, but unfortunately no accelerator. So far from bringing about a more effective direction of the economy of the zones, it has increased confusion. One of the reasons for this state of affairs is that, for every agency within the fused zones of Germany there is a parallel British control. It is as though every worker had standing behind him a man doing nothing except telling him what he ought to do. This has led to a vast complication of the vast bureaucracy in the zones. One of the major steps necessary in Germany is to simplify the administrative machine. I suggest that the first step to be taken to that end should be the removal of bi-zonal control from the lower levels. In other words, where there are certain functional

agencies responsible for food, industry, and so on, the Anglo-American control should be removed completely and reserved for the top level, where we are controlling policy.
I believe that only in that way can we give the Germans a proper sense of their responsibility. After all, in the long run, if we are to get rid of the burden of Germany, if we are to save ourselves from the utter exhaustion which this parasitic encumbrance is causing, we must see to it that we lay the foundation for an administration in Germany which will be effectively self - governing and self-administrating. Unless we do that we will all the time have to act as a nursemaid to Germany; we will all the time have to act as her purveyor and provider; and all the time, while we ourselves are coping with our own gigantic problems, our humanitarian instincts will lead us to efforts far beyond our strength, because in Germany there is a hungry country which we have conquered and which requires assistance.
The only way the Germans can become self-supporting is if they are given the opportunity of supporting themselves. That process cannot begin too quickly; and I believe that it must begin now. Meanwhile, our fundamental task must be to simplify the machinery of administration, to make it more efficient, and to point out to the Americans that while our common interests in Europe demand that we remain the predominant Power in the Ruhr, they have the obligation to Europe of seeing that this winter Germany is properly fed and sustained.

Mr. H. Macmillan: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Can the Government give us any information about when and how they propose to reply to this Debate? It is not unknown for the Government to reply on Supply Days.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): That is not a point of Order and the Question is not for me to determine.

Mr. Macmillan: Then may I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I could not accept that motion.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): My right hon. Friend will reply at the end.

Mr. Macmillan: I am glad somebody is going to reply.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Molson: While I am glad that the Foreign Secretary is to reply to this Debate, I think it is treating the House with a lack of consideration when the very important matters raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) are not to receive any reply from the Government until the last speech of the Debate.

Mr. Bevan: Why not?

Mr. Molson: There was a remarkable interruption from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), who made the claim that the constructive suggestions put forward by my right hon. Friend—some of which were of a most drastic and radical kind—were, in fact, the existing policy of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Lipson: As the hon. Member refers to me, may I say that I made no such claim at all? I merely asked for information. I asked the right hon. Member to make clear to me and to the House generally in what way the principles he was laying down were not those being followed by the Government.

Mr. Molson: I apologise. It is a well-known technique in this House——

Mr. Lipson: It was not in my case.

Mr. Molson: No, but it is a well-known technique in this House when an hon. Member wishes to put a point to ask whether that is not so, and to ask for information upon the subject. What better illustration could there be of the inconvenience caused by His Majesty's Government when an hon. Member who takes a very independent line in this House asks the Government whether, in fact, they are not seeking to follow the line advocated by my right hon. Friend, and it is not until the very last speech of this Debate that that hon. Member receives an answer.

Mr. Bevan: Why not?

Mr. Molson: Since the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is here, perhaps I might repeat, apropos this matter, that my right hon. Friend recommended a number of extremely important matters, such as to recognise de facto that partition does exist between the Russian and

the Western zones. As far as I am aware, up to the present time the Foreign Secretary has always refused to recognise that any such division exists.. Again, my right hon. Friend referred to such matters as the end of denazification, the prevention of the influx of further refugees, and the reconstitution of S.H.A.E.F. It would have been for the general convenience of the House if the Government had seen fit, since they have a number of Ministers associated with the Foreign Office, to let one of these Ministers answer some of the points raised by my right hon. Friend, instead of waiting until the concluding speech in the Debate. On the other hand, I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary is to speak. Most of the earlier Debates upon Germany led to nothing conclusive, because the Minister replying was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who was not a Cabinet Minister; he could not deal with matters of policy, and was able to answer us on each occasion only by saying that this, that and the other thing had been laid down in the Potsdam Agreement—he was, of course, at that time under a directive to carry out the Potsdam Agreement.
Since the Foreign Secretary has become responsible for our administration in Germany, I am glad to notice that matters affecting policy have crept into his speeches. He dealt with this matter at some length in the last speech he made upon this subject, but again, unfortunately, his main speech on that occasion was the last in the Debate. He said then that those matters which he had not been able to deal with, he would be glad to deal with by correspondence, and I availed myself of his courtesy in that regard, asking him for elucidation on one or two points. While I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the care and courtesy he always shows in dealing with matters raised in correspondence, it hardly forms part of our Parliamentary discussions when questions can only be raised in correspondence after a Debate is over.
I have now another criticism to make, that in the steps the right hon. Gentleman has taken he has been a little too tender towards the feelings of our three Allies. I was surprised when he told "me that the "Supplementary Principles governing the treatment of Germany," which


he referred to in his speech on 15th May, and which he had laid before the Moscow Conference, still remain his long-term policy for Germany. That was a very good opening gambit with Mr. Molotov when he went to Moscow, but since Mr. Molotov has treated his Supplementary Principles in the way that he treats most of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, I should have thought that these proposals might now be taken to have fallen to the ground. I do not see why this country should continue to be bound by them, when, in fact, they have been rejected by our Russian Allies.
I come next to the matter of the quadripartite machinery. This was a clumsy expedient to give effect to the assumption and principle of the Potsdam Agreement, that Germany should be treated as a single economic unit. The right hon. Gentleman is on record as having said several times that Russia has declined to treat Germany as a single economic unit. Therefore, the very reason for this clumsy expedient has now come to an end. One day I attended a meeting of the Coordinating Committee, and almost every matter was obstructed by the Russians. We were even refused permission to allow letters written in Danish, which we were able to censor in Danish, to be sent by Danish-speaking people from Germany into Denmark, on the grounds that the Russians had no Danish-speaking censors. It was because of the refusal of the Russians to treat Germany as a single economic whole, that the Anglo-American zones were fused for economic purposes. I should now like to urge most strongly, on the lines of my right hon. Friend, that a great effort should be made to bring in the French zone.
Even before the Marshall offer was made, it was already apparent that there was need for a revision of the Level of Industry Plan. It was necessary for three reasons. In the first place, it was necessary for the survival of Western Germany. In the second place, it was necessary if Britain and the United States were to obtain repayment of the vast sums they have advanced since the end of the war to keep the head of Western Germany above water. It has been calculated by the "Economist" that if Western Germany is even to pay its way, it will be necessary for exports from Western

Germany to be increased to 65 per cent. above the prewar level. In the third place, it is necessary for the recovery of Western Europe that there should be an increase in the level of industry permitted to Western Germany. Although these things were all abundantly clear before the Marshall offer was made, it has surely become a matter of extreme urgency now that the Marshall offer has been made; if it were desirable before that France and the French zones should be brought in with the other two zones, surely it has now become an essential part of the response which Western Europe must make to the Marshall invitation.
If we are to obtain substantial assistance from the United States in order to re-equip and revive Western Europe, then manifestly Western Europe must first make the fullest possible use of its own resources. The Foreign Secretary was abundantly right when he refused to be associated with Mr. Molotov's idea, that every country should ask for just what they wanted and then a common list of all the mendicants should be given to the United States. The Foreign Secretary said that, on the contrary, there must be intergration of Western European industry, and Western Europe must try to set its house in order. Surely, as the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edel-man) said, there is the greatest possible opportunity for a revival of the industry of Europe as a whole, if you integrate the industries of Belgium and Luxemburg, of Lorraine and the Saar. Those, I believe, are the lines on which we should go, and that is a solution both for Western Germany and for Western Europe, and I believe it gives us the best answer we can give to the Marshall offer.
A word should be said here about the attitude of France in this matter. France is faced with an economic crisis at least as grave as our own and at least as pressing. Of recent years it has come to be true of France what used to be said of Austria, that although France's position is desperate, it is not serious. I regret that at the present time, when it is so manifestly necessary for all the resources of Germany to be integrated with those of the other countries of Western Europe, if Western Europe as a whole is to be an economic unit capable of paying its own way, there should be so little co-operation on the part of France. For example, if one looks at the Monnet Plan, almost the only reference


to foreign industry of any kind is a repetition of the claims that coal from the Ruhr must be made available to assist the industry of France.
There is, of course, a great difference at present between the capacity of Germany to produce under the Level of Industry Plan and what is in fact being produced. Germany is allowed to produce 7.5 million tons of steel a year and is only producing 3 million tons. There are three main causes of that—hunger, destruction and hopelessness. That hopelessness is largely due to reparations. So long as the Germans feel that there is hanging over them a danger of the Allies coming down, dismantling their equipment, and removing it as reparations to foreign countries, you cannot expect cither the workers or the employers there to throw themselves wholeheartedly into increasing production. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say—I think it was the first time it has been said from the front Opposition Bench—that the idea of recovering reparations from Western Germany must now, in general, be abandoned. Western Germany today has a greatly increased population as compared with the war, a very large proportion of her industry has been destroyed. So if there is to be that increase in productivity which alone can enable her to maintain her own people, to repay what has been advanced by Britain and the United States of America in the last two years, and to give the people of Germany a reasonable prospect of a better standard of living in the future, then there will have to be an end to the idea of reparations.
I cannot exaggerate the depressing and deterrent effect of such reparations, for I saw it, last summer, when I, with some hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, watched the dismantling of the Hüttenwerke steel works and their removal to foreign countries. I do not object to the removal of that small category of industrial equipment which is not capable of being used for any peaceful purpose, although I would say that Russia is the last country to which I would like to see a war-making capacity being transferred. So far as the industry of Western Germany as a whole is concerned, I believe that our attitude should be that the sky is the limit. I believe that to be the only basis upon which there can

be a revival of Western Germany, a survival of Western Europe, and I believe that should be made the basis upon which Europe as a whole will answer the Marshall offer. With the financial and economic assistance of the United States of America, and with the close integration of the industry of Western Europe as a whole, there should be a reasonable hope that Europe can yet revive and pay its way.

5.16 p.m.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I propose to confine my remarks to Austria, not to Germany, and after hearing so many allegations about what the British Government have not done in Germany, it is a real pleasure to be able to state without fear of contradiction some of the things we have done in Austria. One of the troubles of the Labour Government is possibly that we are rather too diffident about talking of the good things we have done for other countries. On thing we have done for Austria was to give them ten million pounds last winter without which they would definitely have gone under as a people. That ten millions was given partly as credit, partly as a grant, and in spite of our own economic difficulties some of it could be used in dollar form. That ten millions was given when nothing else had come through, before the American loan, and it enabled the Austrian people to live. Heaven knows, it was not very well, but they were enabled by Britain to live from January to May, and they were even able to buy a certain amount of Ruhr coal. It is well this should be remembered, both by the British and by the Austrians. We did this in the hope of helping, what most of us had regarded all through as a friendly people, because it must not be forgotten that although, of course, there were Nazi Austrians, just as there were"18B people in this country, the mass of the Austrian people were friendly to the Allies. They have always been friendly to Britain, and they do not like their history, which is a bitter one.
Their history is that in 1938 they were invaded by Hitler. Austria was occupied by Germany, and that occupation was recognised by the British Foreign Office. The British Government of that day assented to it. We must remember that in 1938 the British Government were all out for appeasement. It was only a little while after the occupation of Austria, that Munich


happened. The Labour Party denounced appeasement, as it always has denounced it, but the Government in 1938 carried it out with what most of us think was disastrous results.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: On a point of Order. Is this discussion to range over Munich and the acts of the parties in the past? Are we to be allowed to deal with the Labour Party's attitude to disarmament in this country before the war?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I am watching very carefully and thought the hon. Lady was merely illustrating a point. It would be out of Order to proceed further on the subject mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Baxter: No one who speaks subsequently, can deal with the Labour Party's attitude at Munich?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I only instanced that because I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Minister to pursue a different policy in regard to Austria, and because I regard one thing that we are doing as the final act of appeasement. I deplore that we are doing it, and I hope that"my right hon. Friend will agree to alter it. The position is this: Although we are accepting, and have accepted almost from the end of the war, Austria as a friendly country, she still has no diplomatic status in our eyes. Her minister here is an alien visitor. He is not a recognised diplomatic minister of an Austrian Legation. I think that this is very unfortunate. Although I do not propose to deal with the quadripartite control now I deplore quadripartite control just as much in Austria as it has been deplored in Germany. America has recognised Austria diplomatically. Let me quote the declaration made by the State Department of America on 28th October, 1946:
The United States has accordingly regarded Austria as a country liberated from forcible domination by Nazi Germany, and not as an ex-enemy State, or a State at war with the United States during the Second World War.
It goes to to say:
In order to clarify the attitude of the United States Government in this matter, the United States Government recognises Austria for all purposes, including country comparable

in status to other liberated areas and entitled to the same treatment, subject only to the controls reserved to the occupying powers in the new Control agreement for Austria, June 28th, 1946.
I hope that we shall follow the lines that America has taken, because the position of Great Britain at present is an anachronism. We do not speak of the peace treaty with Austria; the Treaty proposed is "The Treaty for the Establishment of an Independent Austria," showing that we accept the fact that Austria is a liberated country and not an ex-enemy country with which we must conclude a peace treaty. In spite of that, the Austrian Government have not diplomatic status here—even the furniture that belongs to them is held by the Custodian of Enemy Property, as it was when war broke out. Germany annexed the Austrian Legation and made it part of the German Embassy in this country in 1938, so naturally when war broke out the whole of the property of the German Embassy and the Austrian Legation was taken over by the Custodian of Enemy Property. But I suggest that the time has come when this should be put an end to as far as Austria is concerned. I particularly ask my right hon. Friend to take this step, because I think that it would be a very real help and encouragement to the Austrian people, at a time when they sorely need such help and encouragement.
The British Government have done their utmost to end the occupation of Austria, and it is not our fault that there are still occupying forces there; but neither is it Austria's fault; and she is suffering terribly because these Forces are there, and because, since there are occupation forces of all the four countries making up the Allied Control, our forces must necessarily stay. Indeed, the Austrians would be the last people who would want British forces to leave, when the forces of other countries were still in occupation. What we have to try to do is to get rid of all the occupation forces; to get the treaty signed; but, so far, in spite of all the good endeavours of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Minister, that has not been possible. The result is that the Austrian people are suffering sorely from the occupation. They have been through a winter of bitter suffering from cold and hideous lack of food and, although the rations are rather better


now, and certainly better than they are in Germany, they are still dreadfully inadequate. Austria cannot get any real industrial economy working because she is, like Germany, divided into four zones and because, not through our fault, it is impossible for her to make an effective industrial agreements or to carry on her industry and exchange her commodities from one part of the country to the other, or to carry on any export trade; all because this miserable quadripartite control exists separating the four zones from each other.
On 7th May of this year, the Austrian Parliament issued a statement in which they requested the Government at once to approach the Allied Military Council with a view to securing relaxation of the Control Agreement, until such time as the treaty is ratified. There are a number of things that would make a tremendous difference to the well-being of the people—I cannot say to their state of happiness, but I can say to the mitigation of their misery—if they could be carried out. Some of them in our own zone we could carry out as a British Government. Others could only be carried out—like the removal of the occupation forces—by agreement of all the countries in control.
There are some things that could be done in our own zone. For instance, they have asked for the immediate suspension of every kind of requisitioning of Austrian foodstuffs, as well as other, goods for the occupation forces. That we certainly could do in the British zone. They have asked for the immediate release of schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, spas and hotels for the benefit of the Austrian population and the national economy; they have asked for the repatriation of the prisoners of war and they have asked that the Austrian Government should not be hampered in concluding free and economic treaties with other countries. We could do our best with that although we cannot achieve it alone. They also ask that Austria should be granted the right to issue visas to those who enter Austria; also that all goods produced by firms and concerns, on Austrian territory should be without exception subject to Austrian law, and the Austrian rationing regulations; Austrian control to be conducted exclusively by Austrian officials in order to put a stop to illegal exports of trade; and the

abolition of the censorship on Press, mail and broadcasting.
Some of these things can only be done by a whole of the quadripartite control, and I know we try to secure their achievement; but there are a number of them that we could get done in our zone by altering our own control, and I would urge the Foreign Secretary in the strongest possible way to consider instructing the officials of the Allied Control Commission in the British zone to review all these matters in the British zone so as to see what can be done in order to help the Austrian people. Remember they are our friends and they are suffering gravely from what is no fault of theirs. We should see what we can do to mitigate conditions in our part of Austria, and I ask my right Friend to do both of these things—to have a review made in our zone to discover all the ways in which mitigation can be granted, and to see that diplomatic status is immediately granted to the Austrian Government here in Britain.

5.53 p.m.

Professor Savory: I am sure the House has listened with the greatest possible interest to the speech of the hon. Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) and the sentiments she has expressed will, I feel sure, meet with approval on this side of the House. I also propose to deal with an Austrian question. We have had several discussions in this House with regard to South Tyrol, and I cannot help' believing if a free vote had been taken of the majority of this House it would have demanded the redress of a very serious grievance which was inflicted by the Treaties of 1919 when this purely Austrian, German speaking district was torn from its mother Tyrol and annexed to Italy on strategic grounds, the idea being that Italy could only be defended on the Brenner. Strong sentiments were expressed here which were not confined to one side of the House, and I think we were all agreed in demanding that something should be done. We were to a certain extent reassured when we saw in the Treaty between Austria and Italy that Annexe 4 was inserted and that the conditions, prima facie, seemed to be satisfactory.
However, everything depended on how those conditions were going to be carried out. Everything depended on the good


will with which the Italian Government were going to exercise the powers which the Treaty had conferred. In the last impartial census of which I have a figure, that of 1910, the German speaking Tyrolese totalled 224,388. The Ladin population, which is strongly allied and extremely friendly with the Tyrolese and has been so throughout its history, totalled 19,606, making a total of Tyrolese and Ladin speaking people of 243,994, whereas there were only 7,124 Italians. The Tyrolese population in its own country, the purely Tyrolese district—that is to say as far as the Salurn Gap, because I am not including the Italian speaking Trentino, which the Tyrolese never wished should be restored though it had, of course, been part of Austria—was overwhelmingly in favour of returning to Austria.
Let us take the principal questions as they are laid down in the Clauses in the Treaty, and see how they are being carried out. Clause 3 (a) says that:
The Italian Government undertake to revise in a spirit of equity and broadminded-ness the question of the options for citizenship resulting from the 1939 Hitler-Mussolini agreements.

Mr. Paget: On a point of Order. We are discussing the Vote on Germany and Austria, which is Vote 7. The Tyrol is now part of Italy. Can the question concerning the Tyrol come up on the German-Austrian Vote?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in raising that query, but I think it will come under the Foreign Office Vote, Class II, Vote I, if not under the second Vote.

Professor Savory: While the Treaty has been ratified by Italy, it has not yet been ratified by us. We, therefore, have a very great responsibility to see that this Clause is carried out. I am dealing with this Clause 3 which states that,
the Italian Government undertake to revise in a spirit of equity and broadminded-ness the question of the options for citizenship resulting from the 1939 Hitler-Mussolini agreements.
It will be remembered that in the year 1939 Hitler and Mussolini made a deal in accordance with which either the Tyrolese speaking inhabitants were to opt for Austria, in which case they were to leave Italy or opt for Italy when they would be completely Italianised and renounce all

further claims to Tyrolese citizenship. Under threats, as I maintain, that if they did not opt for Austria they would be deported to Southern Italy, 70,000 of them actually left the country and migrated to the Northern Tyrol, Bavaria and other provinces. The Tyrolese people naturally desire, if this question is to be revised in the spirit of equity and broad-mindedness, in accordance with that Treaty, that these 70,000 people should be allowed to return to their mother country. They themselves desire to return. They complain that they were forced out of the country and they want to go back.
Further, there were in addition 40,000 optants who though they had signed in favour of Austria never for one reason or another actually left the country. At the last minute it was too painful for these mountain peasants to leave the land of their fathers, where their ancestors had been settled for at least 1,000 years, and they remained in the country. Now the Allied Military Government had decided that these people should be naturalised as Italians and they were given naturalisation certificates. They were to be put upon the register of voters but the Italian Government have refused to honour this arrangement of the Allied Military Government and have refused to allow these people to be put on the register. They still regard them as pure Austrians and refuse to accept them as Italian subjects. Therefore, unless these 70,000 people can be brought back and the 40,000 who had not gone away can be given rights of citizenship, there is a grave danger that the native Tyrolese will be swamped in their own land. Here it is relevant to refer to the clause of the Treaty concerning equality of rights which says:
The German-speaking citizens will be granted equality of rights as regards the entering upon public offices with a view to reaching a more appropriate proportion of employment between the two ethnical groups.
It was hoped that this Clause would be interpreted in a fair spirit, but the information which I am constantly receiving from South Tyrol is to the effect that it is impossible for these people to obtain employment. To give an example, 200 of these Tyrolese applied to the railway administration at Bozen at the end of last


year to obtain employment. They were highly qualified and there could be no objection to them whatever, but the prefect of Bozen determined to obtain information from the Carabinieri. The Carabinieri have always been extremely hostile to the Tyrolese population and 90 per cent. of them cannot speak German but only speak Italian. When these reports came in they were all the same: "So-and-So is pro-Austrian"; "So-and-So is anti-Italian"; "So-and-So is German speaking and has Tyrolese sentiments"; and so on. According to my information the result was that not a single one of them has obtained employment and this is the unfortunate way in which this clause in the Treaty—which seems so fair and reasonable—is being interpreted by the Italian Government.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: On a point of Order. The speech to which we are listening appears to deal primarily with the policy of the present Italian Government in regard to the Tyrol. Is it in Order for the hon. Gentleman to continue on those lines when in point of fact the Debate, as we understood it, was to deal with Germany and the affairs of Austria?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am advised that this is a matter which comes within the purview of the Foreign Office, but the hon. Member for Queen's University, Belfast (Professor Savory), will forgive me for saying that he does appear to be going into considerable detail, some of which is possibly not within the Vote. It might be better if the hon. Gentleman would make his points in general terms.

Mr. Cecil Poole: Surely the Vote of the Foreign Office which we have before us this afternoon includes only expenditure relating to Germany and Austria, and in as much as the Tyrol has been part of Italy since 1918, no expenditure which devolves on them can fall within the province of this Vote? I suggest, with respect, that if the hon. Member is to talk about minorities excluded from Austria it would be open to other hon. Members to discuss similar matters such as Hungarian minorities excluded from Hungary, for example.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The matter is certainly not altogether clear, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will indicate to me how he brings this particular subject within the scope of the Vote?

Professor Savory: In this respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We are parties to this agreement, we have approved it, the Foreign Secretary has again and again given his blessing to it, and he has looked upon it as one of the triumphs of the diplomacy of the Foreign Office that it was actually incorporated in this Treaty at our instigation. We, therefore, have a very great responsibility, and the Foreign Office will not deny this because——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be so, but the point is, how does the hon. Gentleman bring the matter within the scope of one of the services connected with Germany and Austria?

Professor Savory: It is intimately concerned with Austria, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because it was one of the concessions which were made to her and one of the means by which we attempted to pacify her and to reconcile her to her condition. I think, therefore, that what I am saying is really strictly relevant to the Vote, and as this is the last opportunity that we shall have before the Treaty is ratified by this country it is very urgent that we should be allowed to consider the question today. It is the last chance that we shall have for discussion and it is a matter on which some of us feel very deeply.

Mr. Poole: If the hon. Gentleman is advancing the reason that we have made this concession as part of a deal that we have done with Austria, then I submit that it will be equally in Order to discuss the partition of Poland as a gesture made to Poland, and there would be no limit to these matters which could be discussed under the present Vote. I suggest respectfully that the point is that there is no money in this- Vote which has been devoted to the problem of the Tyrol and that, therefore, the hon. Member is out of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that Poland is an analogy. We are discussing matters there is always the question of the Foreign Secretary's salary which covers a multitude of matters; but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go into too many relevant to Germany and Austria and details as I agree there is some slight doubt whether the points he is raising come within the province of the Vote before the House.

Professor Savory: I shall not detain the House very long, but it is a matter which I feel that we are entitled to discuss. My last point is that according to clause 2 of the agreement we are told:
the populations of the above-mentioned zones will be granted the exercise of autonomous legislative and executive regional powers.
That is a very strong phrase which might be used to apply to a very extended kind of autonomy and if, in a country such as Italy, you are to be dominated in respect of your autonomy by a military police like the Carabinieri whose numbers have recently been greatly increased, then I contend that this autonomy, which should be both legislative and executive, becomes a vain word. The whole point of the fears of these unfortunate people is that they are being swamped in their own land. Sixty thousand Italians have been brought into the country; they have been given preference with regard to housing and licences for trade and have received every possible favouritism.
The Tyrolese people look with great apprehension to the future. Hitherto, they have had an overwhelming majority, but if, as I have pointed out, both the 70,000 people who left the country under pressure, as I maintain, and the 40,000 who, though they opted for Austria, did not leave the country, are to be deprived of the vote given to them by the Allied Military Government and if at the same time we have this immense influx of, Italians, then I am afraid that all the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman to secure this concession from Italy will be rendered nugatory. I have, therefore, on this last possible occasion, ventured to bring this question to the notice of the House. I feel that it is a matter upon which we are entitled to see that justice is done and that this arrangement which seems so liberal should be carried out not merely in the letter but far more in the spirit. If this is really the case, let us hope that there will be a sincere and profound reconciliation between the Italian sovereign power and the Tyrolese inhabitants of this very lovely and most charming part of the world.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Skeffingron-Lodge: The hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) must forgive me if I do not follow up his speech, about

which it is obvious he felt very strongly, and regarding which I may say without appearing to be patronising that he is obviously extremely well informed. I want to bring the House back to the problem of Germany and its future, which I regard as the most pressing problem which we have to tackle at present, in foreign policy.
We have had several Debates about Germany and I do not think, frankly, that they have got us very far. Time seems to me the very essence of the issues which are at stake. Here we are, more than two years after assuming control of Germany, still without any definite policy, and even blind to the fact that Germany is on the dole, without hope, and a drag on the rest of the world. The destructive activities of the occupying powers are still more in evidence than the constructive ones. That point was admirably brought out by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Mac-millan), despite the fact that he unfortunately tried to make some political capital out of that consideration. The result of stressing rather the destructive than the constructive side of the problem is that Germany is actually nearing flash point. Were it not for certain influences which have kept our late enemies going they would now be in a state of irretrievable moral and spiritual collapse.
What has saved the Germans from that fate so far? Partly it is, I think, the revival of religion in Germany. Church leaders there are heard with increasing attention and respect. Perhaps that is because they are free to speak in a way in which many other people may not be free to speak. Some of them are speaking in a very statesmanlike way. I believe that the churches and the trade unions, taken together, are probably the chief instruments in which lie the great hope for saving the soul of Germany. Total war has brought total destruction and defeat in that country. I profoundly disagree with the right hon. Member for Bromley when he brushes on one side the due and full consideration of the policy of unconditional surrender as a prime factor responsible for the present situation. In passing I would refer to a part of that policy which was even more wicked, namely the policy of saturation bombing


which was bound up with it, and which has left us with this legacy of distress, disaster and misery, a veritable drain on our financial resources.
The mass demonstrations which have taken place in our zone should, I suggest to the Foreign Secretary, be taken as evidence that docility and self-discipline have limits, even in Germany. "Give us bread or coffins" is the slogan of the hour today in many industrial quarters of the British zone. That brings me to the point that the key to the solution of a short-term settlement is mainly the provision of food. I want to put a practical and sensible proposition to my right hon. Friend. I suggest to him that the Ruhr, Hamburg, Bremen and Berlin should all be declared distressed areas and that until stocks are built up in readiness for next winter, they should be given priority of treatment in relation to all food. It is obvious that the country areas and agricultural hinterland to our zone can more easily fend for themselves, and it is on them that any cuts which may be inevitable should be imposed.
While I am glad that in his last speech on the subject of Germany, my right hon. Friend did not put all the blame on the Germans for the present situation, I respectfully suggest that he has not all along put enough stress upon the vital, overriding factor of a grave and prolonged general deficiency of supplies. To blame shortages upon hamstrung German administration does no good in any case. It sounds a plausible thing to say, but does it mean that we can shift our responsibility. Not a bit of it.

Mr. Lipson: The hon. Member is referring to the shortage of supplies and I think he said something about Berlin. Can he say where these supplies come from? I would like to know.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I shall deal with that point later in my speech. It is very much bound up with the implementation of the Marshall plan as the hon. Member will readily understand. I have said that food in the short run is the key to putting things in Germany on a better footing. It makes me feel thoroughly ashamed that there are those in our own country, who grouse and growl under our own rations and our own standard of living, when in Germany the distress through undernourishment at the present

time knows no bounds. The argument that we won the war and that it does not matter very much what happens to our late enemies is pure short-sighted and wicked selfishness. Let me read an extract from a letter which I received only last week from a German mother. She says:
We housewives who have to bear the brunt of such worries do not know any longer what to set on the table for our families. When you cannot even give a piece of dry bread or a cold potato to your hungry little ones, and when your husband is always cold and complaining because of chronic fat shortage you go to bed at night not wanting to wake up next morning. The frightful tiredness and hopelessness of it all is breaking my spirit. I am only one of thousands who often cry when their children look up at us pitifully with famished eyes for the food which we cannot find to give them.
So food does of course come first. But long-term policy must not be delayed in its application and settlement a day longer than is necessary.
Here, short of clearing out of Germany altogether—and I sometimes think that our good name might best be revived if, under conditions agreed with America, we actually did this—vigorous steps should be taken during this crucial summer. The official price system in the British and American zones has largely broken down and the resulting chaos can only be resolved by reforming the currency, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edel-man) in his very able speech this afternoon. This question of the currency seems to have been discussed for months and months. Meanwhile the rot has gone deeper and the black market has spread its tentacles even further.
The fusion of the British and American zones took place some ten months ago. We must face the fact that so far it has proved a fiasco. The export and import programme alone proves that. The export target is £87,500,000 or £7,500,000 worth of goods a month. In the first three months of this year it reached only £7,750,000, the programme being held up by the coal output on the one hand and a complete failure to provide manufacturers with incentives to produce on the other, and also the lack of a satisfactory pricing system.

Mr. C. Poole: Surely the hon. Member will admit that the import and export programme of this country also falls very


far below what was the target during exactly the same period, and also, I suggest, for precisely the same reason—that we had an unprecedented winter?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: While I recognise that, we were led to understand that a fusion between the American and British zones would lead to developments which would be far more satisfactory than the previous position and this target was actually agreed on for the zone. Germany has, so far, fallen very short of that target.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Is it not right that in Britain we have not fully fused with the United States, as I am sure we have done in the zones?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: In reply to that interjection, I hope that we never shall fully fuse with the United States in any direction. In regard to this import and export programme and the falling short of the target which was set, here is just one example of where food and raw materials are urgently needed and where America alone can assist. The situation is further complicated, as has been pointed out in speeches from the other side this afternoon, by the crass folly of expecting any export targets to be reached as long as we allow the removal of vital pieces of machinery for reparations and proceed with the wholesale dismantling of heavy industrial plant for what are claimed as "security" reasons. We are also allowing British manufacturers to interfere through the Board of Trade where they think German exports might threaten our own. That is an unfortunate policy.
The whole long catalogue of mistakes would not however be complete if I did not mention the prisoners of war who are still held here, who are still held in the Middle East and who are still held by our Allies. Without their early return to Germany there seems to be little hope of reviving Germany morally, physically or economically. Apart from those who wish to stay here in our under-manned industries—and all along I have been in favour of allowing them to do so—not only in agriculture but in coal and in other spheres where they have experience and where we are short of British labour, they should all go home, if possible by

the end of this year, in order to rehabilitate their own country.
I would ask my right hon. Friend to realise that the policy hitherto adopted of teaching democracy to the Germans by keeping most of the real power firmly in the hands of our own militarised bureaucracy is simply to ensure that no worthwhile Germans are actually anxious to co-operate. One of the features of life in Germany today is that very few outstanding men have come forward to collaborate and co-operate with us and to help in rebuilding the German economy. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this policy must be changed. Likewise we must at all costs stick to the idea of public ownership for the Ruhr mines and heavy industries. The German people want this, they have said that they want it through the political parties so far established in Germany, and they want it because they realise that socialisation offers the only means of really putting them effectively back to work again. I ask the Foreign Secretary to impress this on the Americans who seem at the present time to be striving against the implementation of this policy.
I ask my right hon. Friend also to allay the natural fears of our ally, France, and if necessary even to provide guarantees to her against her—as I think—ill based fear of German military revival. My view is that Germany and the world are completely sick of war and that Germany is so physically exhausted that even if the will to war-were there—and I do not believe it is—it could not possibly be realised in fulfilment for 15 or 20 years ahead at least. We must somehow live down the fact that we are rapidly becoming hated conquerors in a decaying land which scorns the moral values that Britain represents. How can this best be done and a fresh start be made? Only, I contend—and this is basic to my argument—if the spirit of amnesty, reconciliation and forgiveness possesses us all in full measure. Public opinion in this country is simply longing for peace with Germany. Let His Majesty's Government strive harder than ever to obtain it, at least where our own authority runs. I ask my right hon. Friend to let that great big heart of his, caring as it does for all humanity judging by some of the things


he says, play its full part in the making of all decisions regarding the future of Germany.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower: No one in this House this afternoon can have failed to realise how deeply the condition of Germany and Austria affects us all. I wish to limit my remarks to Austria because I can speak on that with better knowledge. I have had the privilege of being there twice in the last 12 months and of seeing the improvement which has taken place. I would like to support the remarks of the hon. Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould). Certainly the requests by the Austrian Government for greater latitude and better diplomatic representation are requests which we should now be able to accept. The House will be pleased to know that Vienna shows a great improvement on what it was a year or so ago. Four or five shops are now open to every one which was previously open, and the food supply is definitely better. The slow and sheeplike actions of the Viennese population, caused by starvation, have disappeared to a large extent, and so far as that is concerned, we can congratulate ourselves on the progress which has been made.
But the basic troubles of Austria remain. There is still almost a complete absence of rolling stock, a shortage of coal, bar that which is obtained from the Ruhr in small quantities, and a great absence of motor transport. I would support the remarks which have been made from the other side of the House about the untoward spring weather having had a great effect on European economy besides on our own. In Austria, they suffered badly from it. There is no doubt that the quadripartite government is the main stumbling block towards the recovery of a united Austria and the building up of trade. Even our better co-operation with America has still not brought that flow of trade we all desire to see. Relatives living in different districts are unable to exchange their goods. Recently, we empowered the Austrian Government to plan their own economic matters, but this is merely lip-service if the country is controlled by no fewer than five governments. The House realises that we would be glad to get out of Austria, but that such withdrawal could

only be pari passu with our other Allies. The grant of neutrality to the port of Trieste has very much improved the prospect of Austrian economy, because a small State like Austria, with its six and a half million population, must have an outlet to the sea if it is to survive. In Carinthia, there are still border troubles with Yugoslavia, and political factions, of red and white hue, play hide and seek across the border to the embarrassment of the Control Commission and Austria herself.
I am disappointed to see a rise in the cost of the Control Office, and in the allowances for the Allied Commission in Austria. At a time when we are seriously embarrassed financially, to add £297,000 to the Control Office and £570,000 to the Allied Commission is indeed sad. I would ask the Foreign Secretary to give an assurance that all feeling—and there was a little of that when we first entered Vienna—of competitive show-off between the quadripartite nations has vanished. I do not feel that we were the greatest sinners, but we were swept up in the general movement. I would also like an assurance that, what I found in Vienna, a kind of claustrophobia through being surrounded by our Ally, has gone. When I was there, neither troops nor members of the Control Commission were able freely to go into the country.
The House is seriously concerned that the Marshall Plan should be a success, and it must have given every hon. Member pleasure to note that Austria boldly accepted to play her part in that great scheme. In doing so there is an undercurrent of anxiety in Austria, because Russia has been unable to see her way to accept co-operation in the plan. Austria feels that by acceptance she is running the risk of permanent disintegration, which would be a very serious matter for the country as a whole. It is noticeable that the flow of raw materials into Vienna for rebuilding that noble city has suffered since that Russian declaration. Finally, there is the problem of displaced persons, the numbers of which in Austria are out of all proportion to the size of the country. I hope that every effort is being made to recruit from that source valuable manpower for our home economy.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Platts-Mills: I know that the hon. Gentleman the Member for


Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Gandar Dower) will not expect me to follow his review of the situation in Austria, and I hope he will forgive me if I return to the original analysis with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) opened the Debate today. The right hon. Gentleman used an apt description when he referred to the miserable, hideous, picture in speaking of the nightmare in Germany today. It is indeed. There is the paralysis of which every hon. Member who has spoken has reminded us, and there is a breakdown in morale that covers all sections of the community which are honest. There is no breakdown among the racketeers, the black marketeers, the Nazis, and the like. There is a breakdown in incentives, and there is the nazification of industry, which is being intensified. I have said before, and I have pressed it—and I have often been treated somewhat lightly by the Foreign Secretary' for doing so—that I intend, humbly and respectfully, continually to lay evidence before the House of the way in which the great Nazi industrialists are developing their hold on the industrial Ruhr. I look forward to the emphatic and enthusiastic support of this side of the House when I continue along that course. This nightmare is completed by the partition that now exists in Germany, a partition which, I am afraid, is intended to be the partition of Europe.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) said, we are building out of this nightmare a hatred of Britain. This nightmare turns to a dream, because the consequences which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley drew from this nightmare were so confused as to be -dreamlike to a degree. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a masterly precis of "Lloyds Bank Review," for which we are grateful, but the essence of the analysis and conclusion of that Review is precisely the analysis and remedies put forward by Wall Street. His Majesty's Government, I regret to say, are now following that course, so why should the right hon. Gentleman complain of it? There was more in the analysis than was correct. The Ruhr is a great industrial centre, but I doubt whether it is the greatest industrial centre in the world. It is a

geographical and statistical question, and if the right hon. Gentleman will allow his gaze to move to areas in Germany eastward of the Ruhr, he will find centres which are not only potentially greater, but are actually greater centres of industry.
One of the demands which the right hon. Gentleman made was that the Ruhr should be made viable. For every one of these new adjectives there is a new verb. We are entitled to demand a new verb, and I want to know where the party opposite, and some other people, want it to "vi" to. The desire of the Opposition—and all too readily we see the Foreign Secretary falling in with it—and of Mr. Marshall, and those at present ruling in America, is that the Ruhr should be restored, that we should do it by way of denying to the miners and industrial workers of the Ruhr that one step which will enable us to increase production, thereby denying the Election pledges that took us to office in this House. That desire can be summed up in four steps. The first is that we should cancel socialisation. Can my right hon. Friend deny that that is his project in the Ruhr today? It has not been said officially, but it is accepted on our part by leaders of the United States in these matters, and I challenge my right hon. Friend to deny that we have abandoned it, or that we have postponed it for so long that we might almost call it abandonment. The next step is the re-establishment of German monopolistic control in the Ruhr. They now hold the Ruhr in a closer grip than under the Nazi regime. The third is that we should place all this power of the Ruhr under the domination of the United States and under the financial control of the United States. Those are the real purposes of the Marshall Plan. The final step is that we should make the reconstruction of Europe dependent on the acceptance of the trade of the Ruhr.
The hon. Member for Bedford could not see any sign of a plan in what the Government are now doing. I should have thought it was crystal clear what the plan is. He suggested that we should declare these areas of Germany to be a "distressed areas. The essence of a distressed area, as I understand the phrase—although we have another phrase for it now—is that great capitalists should invest money in the area. The Ruhr would be a distressed area for Wall Street, and the analogy which the hon. Member wants


brought into play is already being carefully worked out. We are going forward to the re-establishment of a hegemony of the Ruhr and rule of the Ruhr over as much of Germany as we can reach, and its rulers are to be political leaders from Austria.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I think my hon. Friend rather misinterpreted what I said. I advocated that certain towns should be declared a distressed area in regard to food supplies only, which was part of the short-term policy with which we have to deal. It was not in regard to everything else, as my hon. Friend now implies.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Perhaps I followed the suggestion too closely, or too widely. I followed his contribution with interest, and I do not want to go into the whole of the details of the food problem; but I suggest that all the problems would be clearer if we were clear in our own minds on this dominant question of the socialisation and democratisation of Germany. What to all of us is the nightmare of Germany, and the fantasy of dreamland of the right hon. Member for Bromley, is this re-establishment of the hegemony of the Ruhr and acceptance of the dominance of the Ruhr as the price of all future help from the West. It is a hideous terror for the rest of Europe.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Spearman: The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) has a strange talent for uniting the views of hon. Members on either side of the House. I think it is a very good plan that we should have this Debate on the present condition of Germany in the same week as we have the Debate on the future difficulties of this country, because in so many respects the problems are similar, and, indeed, are inter-connected. I think we would all agree that the great financial burden placed upon this country by the present conditions in Germany are an important, though they certainly are not a principal, cause of our own difficulties. I think that most of us would agree that the failure of Europe to revive has contributed to our own difficulties. That, of course, is due to a great extent to the conditions of Germany. '
The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) told us that the

Foreign Secretary has a great heart. Germany is the heart of Europe but, in recent decades, unlike the Foreign Secretary's, it has been an erring heart; all the same, it is responsible for supplying the lifeblood to Europe. I do not believe that without a prosperous Germany we can possibly have a healthy Europe. He would seem a poor sort of doctor who dealt with a patient with a bad heart by cutting out the bad heart. He would try to make the best he could of it. More particularly, I think those factors which are contributing so largely to present conditions in Germany, the impeding controls exercised by a bureaucracy unable to handle them effectively, are the very factors which in this country have brought about our great difficulties at the present time.
I do not, for one moment, think that the conditions in Germany have been unavoidable. Of course, we all know His Majesty's Government inherited a very difficult situation, and one that called for great statesmanship, but I am quite sure that matters need not have deteriorated as they have. I was in Germany a year and a quarter ago, and again two months ago, and I am certain that they have gone from very bad to much worse. As I am as critical of His Majesty's Government on this matter as I can be, it is fair to say that the new plan for transferring control to the Foreign Office has not had time to be tested. In fact, one could go further and say it has made a fair start. The Foreign Secretary enjoys a respect which is not confined to the benches of this House, whether Socialist or Conservative. In my travels as far West as America and as far East as Germany I have always heard high tribute paid to him, and I think his principal assistant, the Chancellor of the Duchy, has made a really fine performance in creating again a measure of hope in Germany.
People with little food and no hope can do no good at all. At the same time, the very fact that hope has been raised, lays a greater responsibility on the Government to see that it is implemented. I believe the failure of the Government in Germany was due far more to the policy they have dictated than it is to the mistakes in the administration they have chosen. It is obviously impossible to cram into a few minutes all the causes which occur to one. The first and obvious one is the appalling shortage of food and


coal. Quite obviously, men cannot work without food, and especially they cannot win the coal which is required. Without coal, iron and steel cannot be produced, and without both industry cannot revive. But even if we doubled the ration of the average German, I am sure there still would not be a state of affairs in Germany today which could be looked upon as satisfactory in any way.
I wish to refer to two causes which I believe are largely responsible. The first is the confusion that still exists between those who are trying to build up Germany in the belief that that is essential for the economy of Europe, and those who are trying to destroy Germany in the belief that that is necessary for the security of Europe. All of us here have had some experience of two wars created by Germany and, therefore, are sympathetic to apprehension of Germany. Still more can we be sympathetic to our Allies and neighbours, the French, who have suffered three times and been nearer to the centre than ourselves. At the same time, while understanding their apprehensions, and assuring them of our sympathy, we can surely expect them to listen to rational arguments on the subject, and perhaps to learn something from those who can more easily look at it objectively than they can themselves.
After 1918, it took 20 years for Germany to rebuild her shattered factories and her equipment to make war. Yet there was comparatively little destruction in Germany in 1918. It would take more than twice as long to build up again the factories and equipment which would be capable of making her a menace. The factories do not exist in any numbers today and if we are talking about destroying those that remain we are preparing not for a war of the future, a possible war of 1975, but for the war of 1939. Surely we can deal with that by inspection? A comparatively small body of competent inspectors could surely examine conditions in Germany and make sure in advance of any step that required to be taken. I suggest that if we had people examining all the oil imported, and produced there and inspectors examining the distribution of electricity, we should know pretty well what was being done in Germany.
The real danger of another war is not what might, after decades, come out of

Germany, but rather if the Germans, becoming so despondent, handed themselves over to the Communists, and if those German Communists, able, thorough and intelligent men should then exploit the Russian people, and however unwilling the Russian people might be, so exploit the vast resources of their country that they might be a real menace. Perhaps I might quote from the "Yorkshire Post" of Saturday, in which it was stated, in reference to a communique which had just been issued by the United States:
It indicates that war material is being manufactured for a foreign Power without the sanction of the United States Military Government.
The report continues:
the material produced in the factories was passed on to Teltow in the Soviet occupation zone.
I would, therefore, suggest that whatever fears there might be of Germany becoming an effective aggressive force again, they are far less likely to be realised through Germany building herself up than are the fears of what might result from Germany being kept down in poverty and starvation.
I suggest that the second principal cause for the present conditions in Germany is the distortion of the economy of that country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) said that the position had deteriorated terribly in the last, two years. When we took over after the war there were considerable supplies of raw materials. To-day they have run down to almost nothing. There is no incentive for man or master in Germany. We have substituted ineffective controls for the market economy. We have taken away the carrot that tempts without putting in its place the stick that drives. We must have one or the other.
I realise that this is not the time or place to expound the market system. Perhaps I might be allowed to explain what I mean by those words. Under that system prices rise according to the demands of consumers. This has two results. First, it diverts men and materials into those industries in which they are most needed, and the greater rewards call out greater effort and enterprise. Secondly, it protects scarce materials. Higher prices caused by demand are much more effective in causing economy in scarce materials than


plaintive appeals from Ministers to use less, or an attempt to control such materials by rationing, which is so often upset by black market operations. Under the system of controls, on the contrary, one of two things happens. It may be that all prices are fixed, in which case, in an economy where there are greater demands than goods available, every single thing has to be rationed. If everything is rationed at an artificially low price money loses all object. There is no incentive to anyone to earn more. If some things are rationed but not everything, there is a most wasteful diversion of men and materials to unnecessary industries. For instance, we have seen examples in this country of how men are attracted away from the industries which are so urgently needed into such luxury trades as the making of lamp shades.
In Germany and in this country we have the same situation. Ministers have said that we must control essentials and let luxuries look after themselves. That must be a self-defeating policy, when obviously if we do that we are diverting men and material resources to the production of luxuries that are not really wanted, but are more profitable. It is clearly impracticable to fix the price of necessities and let luxuries look after themselves, unless that is implemented by a degree of authoritarian control and direction of labour which would be intolerable in a free country. In Germany today there is no incentive. The industrialist, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley pointed out, pays taxation at a rate which, on occasions, is over 100 per cent. He cannot get raw materials for a great many of the things he needs, and owing to failure to reform the currency, money is worth little to him. I hope that the Foreign Secretary, in winding up the Debate, will explain why this most urgent currency reform, suggested nearly two years ago, has not yet been entered upon. Apparently, it is only for technical reasons, the difficulty of printing, etc. Is it tolerable that we should be in this condition today because the Government have neglected to get a matter like this done?
Moreover, controls in Germany are much more serious in many ways than in this country, because they come from a variety of sources. I was given an instance the other day of a British official

who wanted timber for an important project, and was given an A.1 priority. He had to get a permit from four different Departments. He got a permit from the first one at once, but it took him several months before he got the others. By the time he got the last permit the first had expired. If we are to have controls they must come from one source of power, not from four.
So far as the workers are concerned, again there is no incentive. Not only is there a very old-fashioned taxation system which hits them very hard; there is no point in their earning money when they cannot do anything with it. Moreover, they can earn much more unproductively in the black market. When I was last in Germany, an official gave me an instance of a worker who gave up the hard work he had been doing, for which he had been earning 50 marks a week, in order to keep two hens which he was lucky enough to find. They were rather good hens and laid six eggs a week. He sold these six eggs for 60 cigarettes and exchanged the cigarettes for 300 marks. Therefore, the eggs—which, after all, he had not produced himself—gathered more remuneration for him than that which he received for work which might have been productive to the economy of the country. There must be very much wrong with the economy of a country when such a thing can be tolerated.
I would like to make it plain that most of us who are critical of controls, whether in this country or in Germany, are not advocating the relaxation of all controls. We realise that when there are shortages the relaxation of all controls can only be undertaken at the cost of great hardship. I am not at all sure whether even that hardship would not be better in Germany compared with the present state of stagnation. It would be far better to relax the controls so gently that the market economy of the country was allowed to work. The market economy can work with controls but not if it is choked by them, as it is in Germany and. alas, as it is becoming in this country.
Conditions in Germany are a very significant object lesson to us here. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in particular, is examining those conditions because I think that some good may come out of great evil, if, by realising what has gone wrong in Germany, he saves us from the same fate in this country. In


Germany the disease has gone so far that it may be it can only be cured by a major operation. In this country I believe we are moving very slowly but quite steadily in the same direction. However, the disease has, as yet, such a small hold that it is well within the power of the Government to control and obviate it. I do not think that they have very much time in which to do that. We may benefit very much from the object-lesson of Germany if our rulers will look at that point. I have asked for two things to be done. First, I asked that we should give up this mistaken idea that by destroying factories in Germany and by destroying the economy of Germany we shall make ourselves secure. Second, I asked that we should take the most active steps to regain the price structure in that country, unless we are prepared to adopt, completely authoritarian measures of control and are capable of carrying them out. In order to do that we must have with no delay, a currency reform and a modernisation of the taxation system.
In 1931 in this country we faced the grave menace of poverty and unemployment because, in fact, there was more goods and we had more men than we knew how to employ. Rightly or wrongly, we adopted restrictive measures to deal with that situation. To day I believe we are faced in this country by a peril infinitely greater, for the very opposite reason. We are short of men and material. Now these restrictive practices would be quite fatal. It seems to be quite extraordinary that in this time of crisis due to shortage of men and materials we should have several million people doing nothing in Germany. I ask that we should make full use of those people so they can save themselves by their own efforts, and instead of contributing to our poverty as they are doing now, they can contribute to our prosperity as they ought to do.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. William Wells: The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) has given the House an admirable object-lesson in the art of killing two birds with one stone. He has carried us back to 1931 and forward to the economic Debate to take place on Wednesday. He has castigated the Government on three main grounds, as I

understood his speech. First, he said that what had gone wrong in Germany was due to the policy of the Government rather than to the administration of the officials. It did not emerge quite clearly what he thought was the policy of the Government. He said that there was a confusion between those who wish to build up the German economy and those who wish to destroy it. He himself appeared very emphatically to belong to the school of those who wish to build up the German economy, from which the implication would necessarily emerge that my right hon. Friend would wish to destroy it.
I would point out to the hon. Member when he makes accusations such as those, and when he says that it is the fault of this Government that the economy of Germany has been distorted, that Hitler had quite a lot to do with both of those things. In 1945, when we went into Germany we did not go into a country with an economy working beautifully according to the best precepts of Adam Smith. We went into a country with an economy working according to the precepts of Speer as mitigated by the practice of Air Chief Marshal Harris.

Mr. Spearman: I did say that the Government had inherited a very difficult situation which, under their guidance, had deteriorated a very great deal in the last two years.

Mr. Wells: Yes; I quite appreciated the hon. Member's point, but it did not seem to be clear what the hon. Member thought the policy of the Government ought to have been in relation to building up the economy of Germany. He seemed to neglect those steps which have been taken by the Government so to build it up. Take, for example, the question of the fusion of the zones and the very important departure of policy that has been made with regard to the economic council, and the executive committee working under the economic council. There we have an institution being worked by the Germans. It is an effort to give them responsibility in framing their own economy. That seems to be the most essential kind of step that has been taken to get the Germans to operate some sort of economy of their own. In regard to this point, I would like to ask my right hon. Friend what decisions the economic


council have made up to now; how is it working; and are the Länder cooperating in the work of the economic council?
Then the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby appeared to criticise the Government on the ground that it held some antiquated belief that in order to restrict the danger of German economy becoming the basis of German aggression we had to have an occupation force. The logic of his argument appeared to me to be that all the Allies should walk out of Germany tomorrow, leaving behind a corps of inspectors to carry on the good work. What possible good could be done by a corps of inspectors, however capable and competent, unless they can be sure of the co-operation of the Government of the country? It seems to me that the co-operation of the German Government would not be forthcoming. Such was the experience in Germany after the last war, and such, I imagine, would be the experience we would have today.
The third thing which I gather the hon. Member thought the Government ought to do was to re-organise the currency. I cannot see what is the use of that when there is nothing which the currency could buy.

Mr. Spearman: It ought to have been done two years ago, when there was something to buy.

Mr. Wells: If it had been done two years ago, what difference would it have made? Admittedly, for a month or two, while stocks had lasted, they would have had a royal time, but the fundamental fact of the German economy was that no production was going on, they were living on their fat and eating up stocks. By the time we had re-organised the currency, which is not an easy thing and takes some time, these stocks would have disappeared. Everybody knows that the economy of Europe will not function satisfactorily, unless the German economy also functions satisfactorily, but everybody knows also that what lurks in Germany is the danger of building up another war machine, and the whole problem is not whether we are to decide to destroy Germany or build it up, but to decide how we can possibly build it up without constituting a danger to the peace of Europe.
My hon. Friends on this side of the House have said sufficient about the all important factor of building up the Ruhr for there to be any object in my going further into that matter, nor indeed, do I see that there is much that one can usefully say about that subject at a time when Anglo-American discussions are about to take place. I would only say this to my right hon. Friend. Let the Government tonight, as others of my hon. Friends have urged them to do, give an assurance that the Krupp and Thyssen influence will not be reinstated, if this Government can possibly avoid it, because it is perfectly clear that, on account of our present situation, we cannot maintain our present expenditure in Germany, and, inevitably, therefore, our influence in this country must diminish in the coming months and the influence of the other occupying powers must proportionately increase.
I would ask two questions of my right hon. Friend. Could he give us a clear statement what is the present policy with regard to dismantling, and what is happening today in the Krupps works? I believe that engines, which are very much needed for European recovery, are being built, but we would like to know whether any plan has been made, and is being carried out, for the transfer of these vast works, which give employment to the whole town of Essen, from war purposes to peace purposes, or whether they are merely being left as they were when I last saw them—a mass of ruins in the centre of an unemployed and hostile population. In my view, there are three essential factors which must guide our policy in Germany today. We must reduce the cost, because of the overriding need of this country to cut down our dollar commitments. Secondly, we must convince the ordinary Germans that there is a place for them in a peaceful Europe. Thirdly, we must reassure our Western Allies that we shall put their interests first, even above the political unity or the economic welfare of Germany.

6.55 p.m.

Colonel Lancaster: I think it is very appropriate that we should be having this Debate today under the shadow of our two-days' Debate on the economic situation. Just as we are seeking to solve our own problems, it must be obvious that, without a solution of the problems of


Western Europe, whatever we are able to do in this country can be only of very short effect. The hon. Member for Fins-bury (Mr. Platts-Mills), in dealing with the speech of my right hon. Friend, drew, I think, a completely false analogy from what he said, and, indeed, misquoted him. What my right hon. Friend said, and rightly, was that it was unwise to consider Germany and the Ruhr in isolation, and that they were only part of a much wider integration of industrial resources, those of Lorraine, Luxembourg, the Saar, the Ruhr and Westphalia. Unless we play our part in achieving that wider integration, our efforts in Germany would only be of limited value.
The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells), and also the hon. Member for Finsbury, expressed some doubt as to whether the old "steel baron" influence might again control the economy of the district. I was in Essen quite recently, and I went to particular trouble to find out if there was any connection of the Krupp family with either the works or the coalmines, and I was assured by our own control officers that no such connection at present existed. I join with other hon. Members who have said that the underlying cause of the sense of frustration which one finds throughout that region is due to lack of direction and uncertainty about the further destruction of their existing potential. To come back again to Krupps works in Essen, which one hon. Member described as a mass of twisted metal, there are at this moment only three small parts of this works in existence, and it is nothing less than tragic to realise the effect which will be created in Essen if it is decided to dismantle what remains of the works. In Essen, 670,000 people have no other outlet for their energies than the Krupps works, and that outlet cannot be supplied by what remains of the existing factories in that district.
I want to refer to one of the possibilities that lie within our own zone. It is one which cannot be looked at in isolation, but will fall most particularly to our responsibility in regard to the organisation of that area. There is one bright aspect that, whereas in this country one might be optimistic to suggest that the level of coal production

could rise in a short period from, say, 200 million to above 225 million tons, in the Ruhr there is the physical possibility of raising production from the present level, of about 220,000 tons a day, to something of the order of 350,000 tons a day. Surprisingly, there has not been the physical destruction of their pits which one might have anticipated, and there is not such a shortage of essential materials, as might have occurred. The underlying problem is obvious; it is the lack of food, and, in great part, the lack of accommodation for the necessary workpeople. Food, of course, will lie, to an enormous extent, within the purview of such financial assistance as we can get from America. Accommodation, in great measure, will have to be by way of supply, both from ourselves and America, and the efforts of the Germans themselves.
The part that we can play is, in a measure, a very limited one. We can only give guidance and administrative direction. We can only influence the Germans—it is the Germans themselves who will have to carry out the work of producing coal, steel, or whatever it may be—if we can bring to that task a body of personnel who are of a quality, and have the knowledge, to influence the Germans themselves. In my submission, this becomes abundantly important at a moment when it appears that the Americans and the French will be joining with us in attempting to solve this problem. We can be perfectly certain that the Americans and the French will supply men of the highest grade, and if we, at this moment, lag behind, we shall not only be failing in our share of the work to be done, but we shall be failing in the estimation of our Allies as to the part we are capable of playing, not only there but elsewhere.
I was deeply concerned to find that the one Englishman of outstanding ability on the technical side in the Ruhr was being withdrawn. I have not been assured that anybody of like qualifications will replace him. At this moment, we cannot afford to give them other than of our best. In the nature of things, there are a great many men out there who could not claim to be men of very outstanding ability. They have carried out a good job of work to the best of their ability under difficult circumstances, but no one with a


knowledge of the industrial problems there, would suggest that they rank, either with the existing German personnel, or, indeed, as I have said, with the type of man whom both the French and the Americans will put into that area. Although it may appear to be at the cost of our own industries, unless we can supply, both on the technical and the administrative side, men of sufficient ability to infuse the Germans, not only with the will to get things done, but with the necessary direction, for which they are looking, to enable them to do it, we shall fall behind, and we shall fail so far as our contribution is concerned. I would ask the Foreign Office to exert their influence with the National Coal Board to see that men of the highest qualities are sent out there, and to recognise that, if we attempt to do in the Ruhr what we are attempting to do in this country—to put second-class men into first-class jobs—we shall fail there, just as much as we are failing here.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman cast his mind back to the opening passage of his speech when he charged me with misquoting the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan)? I have listened with great attention and restraint to the hon. and gallant Member's speech, but have been unable to gather from it in what way I have misquoted his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: We are very short of time, and I urge hon. Members to be as short as possible. I do not think that these interruptions are necessary. After all, the hon. and gallant Member made his speech, and he is responsible for it.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Ought the hon. and gallant Gentleman, Mr. Speaker, to make the allegation of a misquotation without, at least, attempting to support it? He at first charged me with drawing a false analogy, which, quite likely, is only his own opinion, but then he went on to say that I had misquoted the right hon. Member for Bromley, which in my submission is a matter of quite a different character, and I would ask him for an explanation or for some indication of what was the misquotation. As the allegation is on record, the hon. and gallant Gentleman should, in my respectful submission, Mr. Speaker, be allowed to answer my question.

Colonel Lancaster: If I may take up half a minute of the time of the House, I would point out that what I said was that my right hon. Friend had referred to the integration of Luxembourg, Lorraine, the Saar, Westphalia, and the Ruhr, and that the hon. Member for Finsbury in his speech had limited what my right hon. Friend said only to the Ruhr itself. That, I think, was completely wrong. He will see it in HANSARD tomorrow.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I feel that the difficulties in Germany are of a fundamental character, and cannot be accounted for by charges of Ministerial incompetence, or by requests for a new currency policy, when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) pointed out, there is nothing to buy with the currency. The fundamental cause of the trouble was that the war went on for too long, and there, I believe, the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) was a great deal nearer the point when he discussed the question of unconditional surrender. I fully agree with him that unconditional surrender means nothing at all. It is a contradiction in terms, but very often it is the most meaningless phrases which are the most mischievous. On this particular occasion, that phrase prolonged the war far longer than was necessary, and we are now reaping some of the trouble caused by it.
The war should have ended after the victories of Alamein and Stalingrad. I agree that, at that time, it was very difficult, and would have needed very great statesmanship. Indeed, it is only rarely that one finds a great leader who is sufficiently a statesman to realise that it can be almost as fatal to win a war too much as to lose it. Such a statesman was Bismarck. Unfortunately, we had a great leader who was a poor statesman. He continued the war to a point at which we had achieved that which, for 300 years, we have fought wars to prevent. We had established a single military Power dominant in Europe. We should have realised that we could no more afford the total defeat of Germany than we could afford the total defeat of Russia, and we are now finding that out.
In addition to the appalling destruction with which we had to cope, and to which that extra year of total war added, we


discovered methods of making the mischief worse. We found in Germany a situation in which industry, which had grown up with the people, each supporting the other, had been destroyed. In those circumsances even wisdom might have found it nearly impossible to rebuild that economy. We devoted our ingenuity not to coping with the appallingly difficult economic problem which we had on our hands, but to devising methods of adding to that destruction. That is what the Potsdam Declaration did. We truncated Germany. We cut off the agricultural from the industrial, and we proceeded, in the industrial part, to destroy yet further that terribly devastated industry. Within that framework no policy could have succeeded.
I do not suggest that the policy pursued was a clever one; I do not think it was. I do not think it was good sense to have a denazification policy which, in those chaotic circumstances, removed every official with the administrative ability to be a sub-postmaster. When the whole of the production is left to a capitalist system, it is not really essential so to arrange the capitalist incentives that not only can nobody possibly make any money, but that the amount which they lose is precisely proportionate to the amount which they produce. By so doing, one reverses the ordinary incentive upon which a capitalist system works. Upon those knock-kneed foundations we have a superstructure of administrative incompetence working upon vertical systems, which would have made failure reasonably certain even in the most propitious circumstances. But when all this is said and done, I believe the reward of virtue and wisdom would have been precisely the same as the reward of stupidity and any disorganisation, because in those circumstances we would still have run out of food and raw materials. There would still have been no working capital to make that truncated Germany a going concern. Once we had the destruction brought about by the war, and added to that Potsdam, no administrative ability could have done anything with the proposition, and we must realise that a mere administrative correction will not do us any good at all. We must have something far more fundamental than that.
There is a fundamental and radical solution. I do not suppose for one moment

that it will be adopted. That solution is the re-creation of a united Germany; but that can be brought about only on one condition, namely, that the Russians go back to their frontiers. The Russians will not go back to their frontiers unless they know that they will have to fight if they do not go back. Within the structure of power politics, no negotiations have any reality unless at some point the participants are prepared to say, "This is the point where the ultimate sanction of power operates." Somehow the settlement of Europe has got to be achieved. U.N.O. cannot work until this settlement of Europe is achieved, because U.N.O. is a system of Great Power concert. It has nothing to do with collective security. Great Power concert cannot operate until there is political equilibrium, until people have confidence in political boundaries and in the independence of political States. Until that state of affairs has been created, U.N.O. cannot possibly operate. That state of affairs cannot be achieved until the Russians go back to their frontiers.
After the Napoleonic Wars, our ancestors were faced with just this problem, when the settlement of Vienna introduced the Concert of Europe which maintained substantial peace for a century. That was introduced at the Congress of Vienna solely because there came a point at that Congress when Talleyrand persuaded the Great Powers to say to the Russians, "Go back to your frontiers or else. …" It may be that that sort of time must come if we are to have a settlement of Europe. More wars have been created by people being determined to avoid wars, than by being prepared to face up to where their really vital interests lie. It may be that the settlement of Europe is where our vital interest lies, and that the best way of avoiding the steady drift into a Russian war, which may happen in the future, is to be prepared to face that issue soon, provided the Americans are prepared to come along with us.

Mr. Crossman: Are they?

Mr. Paget: I do not know. But that may well be the situation, because I am certain that whatever else Russian policy can do, the Russians cannot accept a war now. They must accept any alternative to war within the next five or six years, and if they were convinced that we were


resolutely determined that they should go back to their frontiers, they would go, and the threat of war would then recede. I know it may be said that we have got a trifling number of troops who could be swept into the sea. We should say to the Russians, "Perfectly true; we always begin our wars that way; but if you attempt this clash you know what the inevitable end will be." We could get the settlement of Europe if the Russians would go back to their frontiers, and we should get that stability which would make the U.N.O. system work.
The alternative to that policy is to get out of Germany. We cannot carry on because we cannot afford to do so. In those circumstances, I regard the socialisation of the Ruhr industry as pure lunacy. Neither a socialist industry nor any other industry can exist without working capital. Working capital pays the wages, and wages fill the workers' bellies. If we are unable to do that, the industry collapses, and that is what would inevitably happen in Germany. But if the industry collapses, the people to take it over will be the people who can find the working capital—and they are the boys over in Pittsburg. The effect of socialising the Ruhr industries today would be within a year to have them taken over by the Pittsburg steel people from America, and one would have an American-financed and controlled industry in a cheap labour area undercutting our production for any length of time that we can see ahead. The all-important thing which we will have to do when we clear out of Germany is to provide a successor. We have not got the working capital. We cannot carry on there. We have got to prepare a successor. We must look to the succession. That successor must be strong enough to be able to maintain the Ruhr situation and prevent its falling into the hands of a competitor who is going to destroy us. Therefore, I would urge——

Mr. Crossman: I have listened very attentively to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but I do not follow him. Is his argument that the only alternative to our total evacuation in Germany is a threat of preventive war against Russia? Is that his argument?

Mr. Paget: I am saying that a request to Russia to go back to her frontiers may be the only way to obtain a European

settlement. A full European settlement I regard as the only satisfactory long-term solution.
What I am saying is that since we have got to go, we have to create a successor in the Ruhr area, the only effective succession would be a European corporation which would take over the Ruhr Valley, in the same way as the Tennessee Valley Authority took over its area—an authority in which would be vested the total assets of those industries, before we turned them over to it. It could be a corporation in which the French, the Benelux, the Swedes, the Danes—ourselves and the Americans could all be shareholders to develop the Ruhr as a public corporation for the benefit of the States dependent upon Ruhr production. We have got terribly little time to do that. We cannot get it working before we shall be compelled to move out, but we should create the authority before we have to leave the Ruhr. I urge the Government to get the thing in preparation.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that the war went on too long, and that that is the fundamental cause of the present state of Germany, but I would go still further than he has done; I think that the fundamental cause of the trouble is that the war ever started at all. I cannot agree with him that the reason why it went on as long as it did, was the policy of unconditional surrender. I do not think that the Allies were responsible for the continuance of the war longer than it was necessary. The only person who was responsible was Hitler. Hitler had it as a definite policy, that if he and the Nazis were overthrown, they would bring down Germany with them, and it is for that reason that he was determined to go on fighting to the bitter end. I do not believe it would have made the slightest difference to the date at which Germany surrendered if there had not been that policy of unconditional surrender. After all, our Prime Minister had made it clear that unconditional surrender did not mean that we were going to act in a way that was contrary to our traditional way of treating a fallen foe. Certainly I do not believe we could have got a satisfactory peace if we had tried to approach Hitler to end the war after E1 Alamein and


Stalingrad, because it would have meant that the Nazi régime would have remained in power in Germany and the Fascist régime in Italy, and, personally, I could see no hope of a stable and peaceful Europe so long as the Nazis and Fascists were in power.
Nor can I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it would be right for America and ourselves to approach the Russians today and say, "Go back to your frontiers or else …" I think, after all, we ought to have some sense of morality in our foreign affairs, and that we ought to ask ourselves why the Russians are where they are, so far as their frontiers are concerned. Is it not a fact that Russia is there by agreement with the Allies? Is it not a fact that that agreement was made at a time when we realised we needed Russia's help to win the war? Is it not a fact that Russia gave generously of her strength to help to win the war? Where is the morality now of saying that Russia cannot stand up in the next five years to a combination of the United States of America and ourselves, thereby confirming all the suspicions Russia has regarding the United States of America because the United States have more knowledge of atomic bombs? Is that the way to obtain a peaceful Europe?

Mr. Paget: There is no agreement with the Russians to the effect that they should remain permanently beyond their frontiers.

Mr. Lipson: I think the territory that Russia has acquired as a result of the war is by agreement with the Allies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I am wrong, perhaps, the Secretary of State will in his reply correct me. But, anyhow, I am quite sure that, if we want those frontiers corrected, that is not the way to do it. Suppose we go to the Russians and say, "Go back to your frontiers or else …" I do not know whether Russia would be prepared to do that. Personally, I think it is very much of a gamble, and my reading of the Russian character is, that they would reply, "All right. Or else …" Then we should have to face that. Perhaps, some other hon. Members might welcome that, but I do not think the country generally would wish a war with Russia on an issue brought about in that particular way.
Like everybody else, I regret very much the present state of Germany. I think that there is regretfulness in all quarters of the House that Germany is in such an unhappy state, and that that feeling is generally felt throughout the country. It is not true to say, as the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) said, that the people of this country do not care what is happening to their fallen enemy. That is not fair, or true of the British people. We are sorry for the present plight of Germany, but I think we ought to have a sense of proportion and of fairness. After all, we have done, despite our own difficulties, a great deal for our fallen enemies. I think it is just as well to remind the world that, at a time when we are short of food and dollars, we have allowed food to go to Germany that we have badly needed ourselves, and that we have spent on Germany dollars when we would very much rather have spent them on our needs at home. We are not a vindictive or sadistic people, and if there is anything we could do to improve the status in Germany, I am sure we would do it.
Where I join issue with the critics is, that I have not yet been convinced by anything I have heard that the real blame for the present state of things in Germany is the Government's. I cannot see that, really, there is all that difference between the policy the Foreign Secretary has been trying to pursue—and if he has not succeeded, it is not altogether his fault, and I think we ought to recognise that—and the policy that has been put forward by his critics. We have to recognise that in Germany—as generally in a settlement after a war—we are not acting alone. If we were acting alone, of course, we could do just what we liked, and we personally would be held responsible when things went wrong. But if we have allies we have to be loyal to those allies, and we have to work with them to win peace for the world; and we have to work with our allies in peace just as it was necessary to co-operate with them wholeheartedly to enable us to win the war. Inevitably, there will have to be an agreed policy. After all, it is very often difficult to get three individuals to agree about anything, as we see in this House on occasions, so one can well imagine how difficult it is to get


agreement between the representatives of four nations, with quite different outlooks. There are bound to be prejudices. Therefore, we must keep a sense of proportion and fairness in these matters.
I cannot believe that the question whether or not Germany is to be industrialised once again is as simple as it seems to many hon. Members. It is very easy to take the line that many people in this country do, because, after all, Britain was not invaded by the Nazis. If we had been invaded by the Germans three times, almost within a generation, we should probably feel differently about where the risk for the future lies. We ought to remember, too, why we are in Germany at all. We are there primarily for security reasons, otherwise there would be no reason for our presence there. We should keep the question of security before our eyes the whole time. In any event, that is how France feels about the problem—a feeling we can understand—and as we are all agreed that there must be co-operation with France, we ought to attach due weight to her opinions.
The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) suggested, as the alternative to pursuing a policy of complete German industrialisation, that she would go Communist. I do not know why he draws that conclusion. Have the Germans, through their experience in the Russian zone, acquired such a love of Russia and Communism that they are likely to go Communist? I do not know, but I should have thought it doubtful. Indeed, on the evidence already adduced it seems to me to be absurd. The hon. Member went on to tell us that the other day, in a factory in the American quarter of Berlin, some work was being done for a foreign Power. In fact, they were making precision instruments. Well, they make precision instruments just outside my own constituency, too. To assume from that that there is already a danger of going Communist seems to me rather far-fetched. Also, it is no good suggesting having inspectors to deal with the question of security in Germany, because this was happening in the American zone under the very noses of the American occupying authorities for a long time, and only at long last have they found it out. When the security of a nation is at stake, one

must have regard for more serious matters than that.
I cannot feel that when the account of this Debate is read in Germany it will have a good effect on the Germans, because speaker after speaker has said that the Government are entirely to blame for the present state of affairs in Germany. Have not the German people themselves a contribution to make towards their own recovery? We in Britain realise that we have a contribution to make towards our own recovery from our present troubles. It is unfortunate that that impression should be allowed to get abroad. It will not encourage the Germans to greater efforts if they feel that they are already doing all they can in trying to restore the prosperity of their country. We are told that even now, apparently, German farmers decide for themselves how much of their produce they should hand over. I think that, if there was any evidence that they were not handing their produce over, very strong measures should be taken to deal with them, because we have the right to expect that whatever is produced in Germany should be fairly distributed for the good of the German people as a whole. We might take a lesson in this regard from what Russia did to the kulaks. We should tell the farmers that they must hand over a reasonable proportion of their produce, and, if they do not co-operate, take away their farms and put them in the hands of those who will run them for the common good.
I conclude by asking one question, to which I hope I shall receive a reply from the Foreign Secretary. We were all very pleased when we heard that Dr. Birley, the former headmaster of Charterhouse School, had been sent out to Germany, because we are very concerned about what is likely to happen to German youth. A satisfactory solution must be found of the problems created by the breakdown of the Nazi regime, or something else may arise in its place and afford the possibility of trouble in the future. I do not think Dr. Birley has been long enough at work yet to be able to say anything about the progress made, but it would be reassuring to a great many people in this country if some information could be given on that point. I can assure the critics of the Government that the purpose of my speech has not been


necessarily to defend the Government. I always try to be fair and to maintain a sense of proportion. I am sure I am speaking for the majority throughout this country when I say that I hope that at the earliest possible date, a decent standard of living may be brought about for the German people.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Maude: I am sorry that I cannot follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) in the few minutes for which I propose to address the House. I desire to make two points about which I feel strongly, both of which arise out of my recent visit to the Ruhr with the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster). I sat with him listening to all sorts of officials for many hours, during which I did my best to understand the complicated technical discussions, and I can assure hon. Members that it will be well worth their while giving the most serious attention to those parts of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech in which he referred to personnel. Whereas he afterwards went to Essen, I stayed in Dusseldorf, where I spent three hours with the present prime minister of Land Westphalia and the town clerk of Dusseldorf. The present prime minister of Land Westphalia was then the lord mayor of Dusseldorf and a Socialist. We had a three hours' conversation, alone—I cannot go into all the details of it, of course—as a result of which I asked him and the town clerk to communicate with me if they were in any grave difficulties on administrative matters, when I would see if there was anything at all that could be done. I wondered whether sometimes they understood the machinery themselves.
Some weeks ago I received a letter, about which I have communicated with the Department of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and as I have not received a reply, I wish to raise the matter now. It is on the question of medicines. The town clerk wrote me a long letter enclosing a report from Dr. Braun, the medical officer of health of Dusseldorf. Dr. Braun reported on the short supplies of all those things about which one can feel intensely interested immediately I mention them; that is to say, pain curers, cotton wool; and plates to mend fractures, which comprise but a

small fraction of the list sent to me, which was appalling, if it was true. I then went through the dreary round on the telephone, trying to find out exactly what was the procedure to deal with that in London, and I received great courtesy from countless officials. Nevertheless, I came to the conclusion that the probability was that, possibly as a result of the Americans and the British working together—because, after all, there have to be joint councils now—there was not that speed which there should be. Also, I was inclined to think that it is not dealt with at a high enough level, thus not receiving—as we all know from experience in and of the Civil Service—that urgency of attention which is absolutely essential. I say that without any criticism of the Civil Service.
The Control Commission officials whom I saw were of the highest calibre. I should hate it to be thought that there were not men and women in Germany with a real sense of calling and an absolute, devotion to the job. I have noticed in the Press in the last few days a tendency to speak as though nobody in Germany thought it was worth while, and so on. That was not my experience. I thought those civilian officials whom I met were admirable. I also met some Army officers, who seemed to be first-class in trade and industry. I thought those persons of whom I am now thinking felt rather lost, as a Government official does. Like several hon. Members in this House, I have been a Government official, a long way from London, and one does get a nasty feeling that one is lost, as though people at home do not care and do not understand. I hope that I may have some sort of answer about the medicines, and that those who have done their duty expertly and well, who want to go on doing their duty, will receive a pat on the back tonight. I hope that something will be said to show that we are not going to allow the machine to run down, as the Germans think it is running down—that is to say the personnel deteriorating—but that these people who go out there, will have proper remuneration and promotion.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Bramall: I am glad to have this opportunity to say something on a subject about which I feel very strongly, because of my association for


a year with Germany as a member of the Control Commission, and my constant contacts with and visits to Germany since then. I am glad that I have been saved the trouble, by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), of answering the mischievous speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). We have done some pretty quixotic things but an economic crisis as a prelude to war is a quixotry of which even we would not be capable. I also dissent from the impression he gave that there is nothing much which can be done about Germany because the destruction is too great. The destruction in regard to everything which makes for the amenities of life is absolutely staggering, but the astonishing thing is the small-ness of industrial destruction. Had the necessary economic measures been taken earlier, there is no reason why German industry should not have again stood on its feet. I believe that there is still time, but, in the words of the Lord President of the Council, we are at the twelfth hour.
I believe that the demoralisation of the German people, particularly the political demoralisation, has reached such a point that it is very difficult to set them on the road to democracy. On the other hand, I believe that we can still bring economic prosperity to Germany, or some sort of working economic system, if we take the necessary measures in time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley-(Mr. H. Macmillan) said that the fault was not in administration but in the Government's policy. I believe that to be totally wrong. I believe that the Government's policy, so far as statements of policy go, has been substantially right, but I am convinced that they have been misled by their officials, and that their officials have persistently failed to carry out their policy.
I believe that to a very substantial degree, the officials in Germany are people who hate and detest this Government. Many people in the last few weeks have told me the same tragic tale—I have no doubt that this is something hon. Members on the opposite side will applaud, although I cannot applaud it—namely, that Control Commission officials make no secret, not only to their friends in the Control Commission, but to their German acquaintances and the Germans with

whom they do business, of their complete contempt for this Government, and their complete unwillingness to do its bidding. I believe that these people are making every difficulty for the Government in carrying out their policy. I believe that the way it occurs is that whenever a question comes up for decision, such as currency reform, land reform, or the level of industry, they are always willing to put forward every difficulty in the way of settlement, and to put forward objections to any particular line of solution.
The problem of currency reform has been raised. It is totally untrue to say it is a question of no importance because there is no production. Of course, there is production. Although production is totally inadequate, things are being produced. The point is that the goods are not going into the right channels, and are not being sold for money. Either they are handed over to the workers so that they can barter them for food, or they are used by the employer to barter for raw materials. This can be settled only by currency reform. Already two years have gone by, and for 18 months it has been abundantly clear that we must have currency reform. I know the difficulties of my right hon. Friend, who will say, if he deigns to reply to this part of the argument, that we have to reach agreement with the Russians, that the Russians will not tell us what they have printed and that the Russians will not agree to common printing. All that is true, but are we to wait indefinitely?
Suppose that the Russians do not agree for 10 years, are we still to go on with an unreformed currency? We must reach a point when we say that this problem is so vital that we must solve it; but all the officials are doing is to put difficulties in the way of solution. The reason is that they consult with German officials who know perfectly well that if this currency reform is carried through, it will mean a great reduction in the standard of living of the richer classes. Too much is being said today about the economic position of "Germany," that "Germany" is suffering from this and that. The position in Germany, as I know it from my personal experience, is that one-third of the German population—the industrialists, the black marketeers and the richer peasants—are, if anything, better off than they were before the war. They pay no taxes, because


their incomes are undeclared. They continue to enjoy the use of their property by bribery, sometimes of British officers—I could give instances to the Under-Secretary, if he wants them, of people retaining their houses without having people billeted on them. They still run their cars, and they still get their petrol allocations. It would be unpleasant to mention names, but I could mention them if I were challenged.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The hon. Member says that he has instances of bribery which he could give to the Minister if he required them. I venture to suggest that if he has these instances, it is his duty to give them whether he is challenged or not.

Mr. Bramall: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a great exponent of sense of duty and high moral tone, but I do not think I need instructions from him about my duties. I have probably taken up as many cases regarding Germany as any Member of this House. The position is that these people are still living at a very high standard.

Mr. Macmillan: That is an extraordinary statement.

Mr. Bramall: I think it was extraordinary for the right hon. Gentleman to try to point out what my duty was in this respect. The remaining 60 per cent. of the population—the members of the population who are dependent upon their wages and salaries—are living at a desperately low standard. When I was last in Germany in December, the calculation was made by the trade unions at that time that the workers' expenses were only covered by their wages up to 47 per cent., and that for the remaining 53 per cent. they were compelled to draw on savings. Everyone will admit that that is an impossible economic situation to be maintained, and that is why this currency reform is so vitally important. Unless there is currency reform it is not possible to even out the burden at the present time. This gap in the standard of living between the two classes is steadily increasing.
The greatest condemnation that can be made—not of the Government because I do not think it is a matter of policy but of the failure of the administration in Germany—has been the fact that they have failed to settle these problems and

take any steps to close that gap and have failed to solve the problems which the working sections of the Germans are looking to us to solve. They have failed to give a decision on the nationalisation of the coal mines, which is not just an economic question. It is a question of enormous political significance to the miners in the Ruhr, on whom we are dependent for getting coal. Surely, we do not have to tell Members on this side, who have known throughout the years the importance which our own miners attached to nationalisation of the mines, what that means to the German miners.
Further, no decisions have been taken on land reform. I know that we should consult the German parties and all the interests affected, but does that mean that consultation should go on for month after month, for year after year, without reaching any conclusion? Surely, we ought to have some, sort of a decision? Decisions have been made in the Russian and American zones. I do not agree with the type of land reform which has been carried out in either of those zones, but at any rate decisions have been taken there, the people know where they stand, something has been done. In our zone there is the continuing desperate hopelessness of seeing no decision arrived at, of seeing that nothing has been done. No conclusion has been reached about handing over responsibility to the Germans themselves. This point, which is of vital importance, has been stressed by other speakers in the Debate. The German authorities are continually producing plans for solving problems, and the degree to which they can solve them is limited, as they are very dependent on outside resources. But they must be allowed to play their part, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) said, in rebuilding their own country.
It is not so much that they will not assist in rebuilding as that they are not given the chance. Let me give an example. One of the biggest industrial problems in Germany, during the past winter, was whether they should get as much coal as they could into industry, and leave the civilian population to freeze—many, indeed, did freeze to death—or whether they should sacrifice a certain amount of coal for industry for a domestic ration. The German economic authorities in the British zone took the decision, rightly or wrongly, that they must have a


domestic coal ration. Immediately, the British authorities said, "You must not do that." We came along paternally to turn them aside into the path of rectitude.
Either we have to run the place entirely by ourselves, say to the Germans, "We shall treat you as a colonial people, who cannot run your own affairs," or we must leave them to make their own mistakes. The Government must make a firm decision to allow political and economic responsibility to the Germans. At present, the most distressing feature in Germany is the complete cynicism there about democracy, the extent to which the German people are disillusioned about the prospect of ever getting any hope from a system which they call democracy. They say, "We are being ruled by people who call themselves democrats, and therefore the present system is a democratic system." They see democracy producing no responsibility, nothing but cold and starvation. As has been said, we have done a great deal for Germany, and have sacrificed much. Does it not make it all the more tragic that we have made these sacrifices, and have done so much that we were not called upon to do for a defeated enemy, and have yet produced so little?

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Vane: The speech of the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) has confirmed the view that our control Commission in Germany is a service which has many shortcomings. The hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) spoke of the coming winter in Germany as being grim and ugly, because of the shortage of food supplies, and I should like to speak on this same subject; it not only interests the Germans, but the British too; it is the British taxpayer who pays. Questions have been asked, both during Debates and at Question time, but to date we have been given no information by the Government about their plans except that of a most general kind. I hope that we shall be given today a great deal more detailed information than we have been allowed to have in the past.
As time is short, I will try to condense my speech, and I apologise if, consequently, it becomes rather like a series of questions. First, I would like to ask whether the Foreign Secretary can give us any hope that trade with the Eastern Provinces will yield largely increased

quantities of grain this winter over the quantities which were imported into our zone last winter. I hope that it will be so. After our recent attempts to arrive at a trade agreement with Russia, I understood that there were one million tons or more corn available in Russia this year. Will that quantity now be available for Germany under the Potsdam Agreement, or will the quantity be half a million tons, or, if not, how much?
There is also the other side to this question, the encouragement being given to the German farmer to increase his production. When I was in Germany, at Whitsun, I was favourably impressed by the standard of German farming in difficult conditions—the shortage of machinery, fertilisers, and so on. But the bigger farmer, on whom we must depend for the bulk of food supplied to the market, is at present farming under the shadow of expropriation, that proposal which, from time to time, is given the exalted title of "land reform."
On 5th February, I asked the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was replying to a Debate on Germany, to tell us something about these proposals, but we were not allowed one word. Since then, my hon. Friends and I have asked a series of Questions, and have been given most evasive answers. The"most specific reply we have yet received was from the Foreign Secretary, on 15th May, after returning from one of his journeys abroad. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
There is another matter on which we reached agreement, and that was complete land reform for Germany by the end of the year. That gets rid of the foundations of the old German General Staff and breaks up the land. I think it will make for greater efficiency and particularly for reorganisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1947; Vol. 437, c. 1733.]
That is almost worthy of the late lamented Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I am sure that everyone will agree that everything should be done to see that the old German General Staff is not allowed to continue as a semi-secret society of peasant farmers. But when we come to the statement about breaking up the land making for greater efficiency and reorganisation, I do not know what it means, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman knew what it meant, especially as it has been said that


only 2,000 or 3,000 farmers in the zone would be affected.
Since we were unable to get the information we required from the Government, we had to try to get it from Germany, and I got in touch with a distinguished professor of agriculture who, in the past, was a well known Liberal. I obtained some useful information from him, and passed it on to the Chancellor of the Duchy. Because he was a Liberal and more likely to be prejudiced in the interests of three acres and a cow than in the interests of the larger farmers, I hoped he would not think that it was Tory propaganda. I hope now that the House will excuse me if I read a paragraph which, I think, for the first time, gives the House something more than the vague statements which have been made on this important question by the Government:
In the Western zones there is also legislation proposed prescribing the splitting up of farms of over 100 hectares, but without precise directives how big the new holdings are to be. Generally speaking the number of large farms is so low in Western Germany that the law would make no great change in the agricultural structure. In certain regions effects will however be greater, particularly in East Holstein. The effects on the volume of food marketed are difficult to predict. Where a greater number of farms are split up there will certainly be a decrease of deliveries for a transitional period, at least. Whether such decrease will be permanent or not seems to me to depend on the size of the new holdings. The size-group with the highest turnover has always been the larger type of family farm. In my opinion only a general shift to small self-subsistence holdings (under 10 hectares) would definitely and permanently diminish market deliveries of all types. To get more food out of German farming now, when we urgently need it, a really substantial increase of the supply of fertilisers, machinery, and general equipment of all kinds, is more effective than any land reform policy. All land reform is a long-term matter. It ought to be carried out according to the most reliable long-term forecast of all factors involved.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that these factors are being taken into account. Even if hon. Members do not agree with everything in that letter, I am sure that all of them will agree that it is remarkably good English to be written by a foreigner.
As we were still able to obtain no information from the right hon. Gentleman, we had to search further in Germany in order to obtain a copy of the draft ordinance about which they have been

so secretive. We succeeded, and I think that the introductory paragraph really shows the sort of way in which right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been thinking of this whole matter:
Whereas it is expedient to reduce the political and economic power attaching to the ownership of large estates by limiting the amount of land which may be held by any single owner and also to provide opportunities of land settlement and agricultural employment for a greater proportion of the population.
Since they are only going to concern themselves with 2,000 or 3,000 farms, the amount of land which they will get will be very small, and insufficient to settle any large number of families on the land; especially if they follow the technical advice and make the holdings of sufficient size. Hence this is no solution of the refugee problem. Further, although it is very hard to credit, the Government are intending to split up the woodland property on the same lines. I cannot believe any technical advice could support this proposal.
I think, too, when hon. Gentlemen have suggested that the Control Commission is rather unwilling to give anything in the nature of orders, they might be pleased to hear the covering note with which this ordinance was sent to the Zonal Advisory Councils:
4th June 1947.
Attached at Appendix 'A' below is the text of a draft ordinance concerning agrarian reform which it is desired to promulgate at the earliest possible date. "As this matter is regarded as of particular urgency it is hoped that any comments which the Z.A.C. may wish to make will be forthcoming at their next plenary session on nth and 12th June.
It gave them seven days to consider that. Whereas, one always welcomes a rapid decision, I should have thought that an administrative matter of this sort would take a great deal more than seven days if it were to be considered properly, and if experts were to be consulted; and so I charge His Majesty's Government with treating this most important subject simply on the basis of political expediency. I think that that may be putting it low. The question of food deliveries to the German people is surely not only important to them but to the British taxpayer as well, and instead of bringing forward evidence to explain to us that what they are doing is in the interests of increased food production, they have simply


brought forward these vague suggestions about reorganisation and splitting up the land, and have been unduly secretive over the details of their proposals. I consider that at the best they are putting political considerations too high, and, at the worst, which I believe to be the case, I think His Majesty's Government are finding themselves in the invidious position of not only having undue pressure brought to bear on them from the least reputable trade union leaders at home, but are also under pressure from the German trade union leaders as well.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Bechervaise: Perhaps the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) will not mind if I do not follow him in his argument. I want to bring the discussion back to Austria, and particularly because an hon. Member on the other side said that the condition of Austria and of the people generally had improved during the last 12 months. I have not been in Austria during the last 12 months, but I have my contacts there, and my impression is, particularly with regard to the industrial work in Vienna, that conditions have not improved taking into consideration that its people have been living on 1,250 calories intake. Although there has been an attempt to raise it to 1,550 calories, that certainly has not been maintained in Vienna.
What good can it do even to the Balkans if they keep these 6,500,000 people in the condition they are today. I want to point out precisely what the average worker and his family are living upon. I that that it will be found that conditions generally have not improved, and the prospect is not inviting. Here is a country with a population much less than that of London controlled by four zones. It is true that three of the zones are, more or less, co-operative, but one zone is, more or less, barred. The Allied Peace Commission has been sitting, and the people at first lived in hope that something was to be done, but, as time went on, they have got into cynical despair. It is true that in the Russian zone there are considerable industries, including the oil works, but I am sure that cannot be the only reason why the Allied Peace Commission has been held up. In September, 1946, Austria was producing, roughly. 40 per cent. to 41 per cent. of their own food. In May of this year, it had dropped to 31 per cent. That means that all the

time Austria is living more or less as a pauper.
There are large bodies of people, displaced persons, and, incidentally, there have been thousands coming forward via Hungary—who are adding to the difficulties of Austria. Many of these people, it is true, work; many of them, however, do not work, and they, too, are living on Austria. The whole position seems to be completely farcical in view of the fact that the Allies had agreed that, at the earliest possible moment, Austria should have complete political and economic control of its own area. Yet the years have gone by, and this small State is confronted with difficulties intensified by the occupation. It is true that food production could be increased in Austria, and I raised the question with the Chancellor of the Duchy about nine months ago as to what improvements were being made, and whether we were encouraging research and the importation of fertilisers and seeds. It does not appear that there has been any improvement in Austrian agricultural pursuits. Fertilisers are lacking; seeds are lacking. It is obvious that if Austria is to be self-supporting, its agriculture will have to be developed.
Furthermore there are in this country Austrian doctors and Austrian lawyers who apparently refuse to return to Austria to assist her in her plight. This Government should take upon themselves the responsibility of insisting that those people who have found a refuge here, and who were accepted in periods of stress, should now return to their own country and assist Austria to get on her feet. Also, the peasants should be compelled to play the game. There is no doubt that the peasants are fairly hale and hearty, and while I have no doubt that the Control Commission and the Austrian Government do their best to see that the collections of foodstuffs for the people of the towns is thorough, it is well known, not only to the Control Commission but to Government and to local government, that the peasants are not playing the game. Only recently thousands of head of cattle were sent into Vienna and there was not a meal on one of them. They had to adopt measures for fattening them. These and other transactions should be eliminated and those peasants who will not play the game should be dealt with pretty harshly.
There is one thing which confuses me and perhaps my right hon. Friend will


assist me. Austria has agreed to come into the Marshall Plan. Presumably those countries which are accepted in that scheme will have to make their contribution as well as participate in it. How on earth is Austria thoroughly to participate, whilst a large and valuable area is dominated by the U.S.S.R., who are resolved that they will have nothing to do with the Marshall Plan. It is obvious that they will see to it that part of Austria which they control will not participate. It would be a great help not only to me but to other Members of the House if my right hon. Friend could tell us how that will work out. There has been criticism of the Control Commission in Germany, but as far as the British Control Commission in Austria is concerned I think it is recognised that they have played an important role and have performed their duties conscientiously. However, I feel that the time has arrived when there should be a review and a considerable reduction of personnel in the Control Commission in Austria. They have done their job and done it thoroughly, but now some economy might be exercised there.
With regard to the troops, it would appear that Marshal Tito has soft pedalled on the area between the Karawanken Mountains and the River Drau, but it would appear, on the other hand, that the Soviets are obviously trying to keep that matter open. The few troops we have there would be non-effective if anything happened and they might as well be withdrawn, because we would need at least six divisions to look after the frontier of Styria and Carinthia. I submit if the area has to be policed, it could quite adequately be policed with armoured cars and the reduction in those forces would quite possibly ease our position here at home. I think I will leave the subject there. I have been asked to finish, and I am sorry if I have kept on longer than I should. I hope the Minister will give us some idea of what will happen not only in Austria but in Germany who are to participate in the Marshall Plan, while the U.S.S.R. have refused to do so and at the same time are controlling considerable industrial areas in those two countries.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: In the very few minutes which are left to me,

I should like to say that throughout this afternoon my impression has been that this has been an uneasy and rather unreal Debate. We do not know what is going to happen on Wednesday and Thursday and we are, therefore, working to a certain extent in a vacuum. What appears certain is that after what I thought was a constructive and grand speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) no answer was given by the Government so that we have been left without any facts upon which to argue, and the Government will afford us no facilities until next Session to answer the points which they are likely to make at the end of the day. I am very dissatisfied with that position.
The whole question of Germany and what will happen there will directly affect the lives we live in this country, and I do not think any hon. Member on any side of the House will disagree about that. My criticism of the Government is primarily as to their timing. They always take about 18 months before suddenly deciding to do something which they should have done 18 months before. As will be seen in col. 81 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 16th August, 1945—which I intended to read but cannot for lack of time—my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) put very clearly the point at issue and the facts which have come to pass. They are apparent for all to see and, once more, his prophecies were right. I have not the time to develop the question of the shattered state of the cities of Germany, the inadequacy of their food position, the slender soap ration, the rise in tuberculosis, or to go into the matter of the tawdry, prostituted life in Germany today. We all know that something has to be done, but let us be mindful of two things. Clearly, first of all, Germany caused the war—that we must remember. Secondly, a great deal of this trouble has been built up by the Soviet's refusal to co-operate in Berlin. That is where the indictment chiefly lies, and it is fair and proper to remember it.
How are we to get over this point? Quite frankly, I agree with every word that was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley but I just cannot develop the point, because I have not the time. I believe, however, that the only method by which we can possibly get at the problem is to reach an agreement between the three Western


Powers and work on a S.H.A.E.F. principle. When discussing Germany in this House, I have mentioned many times the fact that, personally, I feel we should develop the German plains for the training of our Armed Forces, thereby keeping an occupation force. I still have that fear of Germany, and although I do not believe that we can have detailed control of the industrial life of Germany, it is my opinion that we should and could control the periphery. I do not believe that Germany should be allowed the capacity for building deep-sea ships or to run deep-sea shipping, but, if the criticism is that Germany cannot afford to ship in vessels belonging to other Powers, let us be mindful of the fact that prior to the outbreak of the 1939–45 war German shipping and shipbuilding were subsidised. By exercising control of these ships, we should at least know the imports and exports of the country. I have no more time at my disposal, and I thank you very much, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for allowing me these few moments.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Richard Law: I am sorry to have cut short the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall). It is a pity that the exigencies of debate have prevented him from developing the argument that he touched on so concisely and clearly. I do not think we could have any objection to speeches like that of the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Bechervaise) or of my hon. Friend the Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory), who, earlier in the day, reverted to the problem of Austria. This Debate covers both Austria and Germany. The Austrian problem is vitally important to this country. I believe—and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin—that the German problem in particular affects the lives of every one of us in this country, and therefore I propose to devote my not very lengthy remarks to some aspects of that problem as they have emerged in the Debate.
This has been a very interesting Debate. It has also been very depressing and very dispiriting. Such a debate at such a time could hardly be otherwise, but it has been extremely interesting. There have been some very interesting speeches, notably the opening speech of my right hon.
Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan). Incidentally there has been no kind of a reply to it except for the rather woolly declamation of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills). What struck me as particularly interesting speeches were those of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) and the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman). As the House will remember, the hon. Member for Bedford said, among other interesting remarks, that two years after the occupation we were still without any definite policy for Germany. The hon. Member for West Coventry—I hope to refer to him again—said that our German policy suffered from too many drivers, too many brakes and no accelerator. Those speeches are very encouraging, because they show that the eyes of hon. Members opposite are being to some extent opened upon some aspects of the policy of the Government which they support. I do not expect that it will be very long before hon. Members opposite begin using the same kind of language about the domestic policy of this Government. It may be that they have already used it upstairs, although I would have no definite knowledge of that.
I would like to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman). He has spoken in a great many of these debates on Germany and he has always made an extremely thoughtful and careful contribution. I suppose there is no Member of the House who has taken a more sincere and genuine interest in this problem than he. However, there is one statement he made on which I would take issue with him, if he were here. He said that the new plan for the administration of Germany under the supervision of the Foreign Secretary had made a good start. How on earth does he know that? Nobody else knows that in this House, because the Foreign Secretary so far has not deigned to inform the House of the position. It is a most remarkable innovation in our procedure, which the Foreign Secretary has developed, of coming down to the House, hearing criticisms of the Government's policy, and nothing happening, no statement of any kind, until the end of the Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin made this point, and it is a valid one.
In the last major foreign affairs Debate the Foreign Secretary, with great reluctance apparently, was dragged to the Box to reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). He read a typewritten statement of one page, which was something of an advantage, perhaps, because he usually reads a typewritten script of about 80 pages. Then he never uttered a word, and the Government never uttered a word, until the end of the Debate. Today the Foreign Secretary has not even done that. It is only now, in a few minutes time, that he will give the House any indication of the Government's present policy. The Foreign Secretary ought to realise that this is a Supply Day and that his Vote is under consideration. How in the world can the House of Commons function if on a Supply Day the responsible Minister does not even bother to give an outline of his policy and to reply to any criticism made of the present situation in Germany early in the Debate? I suggest to him that it is really an abuse of Parliamentary procedure.
The hon. Member for Bedford referred to the Foreign Secretary in these terms, "That great big heart of his which cares for all humanity." It does not seem to me that the Foreign Secretary cares very much for the House of Commons, and I hope that in future he will treat the House of Commons with a little more respect. It may be that the whole problem is so new to him that after hearing my right hon. Friend's speech, he had to go away and think. I hope that is not the reason. If it is so, it means that the hopes which have been placed in him, and in this transfer of responsibility for the German problem to his final charge, have been misplaced. I am afraid that the real reason is not that, it is that the right hon. Gentleman is more accustomed to the procedure of the Trades Union Congress than he is to the procedure of the House of Commons.

Dr. Morgan: Poor, patronising admonitions.

Mr. Law: I do not see how it can be patronising, except in the eyes of certain hon. Members opposite, occasionally to stand up for the rights of the House of Commons. I would revert again to the speech of the hon. Member for Scar-borough

and Whitby. My hon. Friend said that it was in some ways a fortunate coincidence that this German Debate was to be followed so soon by the economic debate on Wednesday and Thursday. He said, in perfect truth, that what is happening in Germany today ought to be an object-lesson to us here. Indeed, anybody who listened to the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley might have been forgiven if he had supposed that his criticism of Government policy was directed not to the Government's policy in Germany but to the Government's policy in this country as well. And indeed the parallel between the two conditions is remarkable. As far as Germany is concerned, of course, there are exaggerations. It is rather as though one went into one of those halls of mirrors which I remember going into at fairs as a child. One sees oneself immensely magnified and distorted and grotesque, but still the image is unmistakably oneself.
The same thing applies very much to our policy in Germany and our policy here. It is the same policy in Germany which is producing the same results. The policy is very much exaggerated and the results are very much worse, but, if I may vary the metaphor, it all comes from the same stable. Everything Germany is suffering from, we are suffering from. There are shortages of food in Germany, and there are shortages here. There are shortages of coal hi Germany, and there are shortages of coal here. There are shortages of consumer goods, exports, hope and, above all, shortages of policy in both countries. The fundamental cause of the German economic problem is the same as the fundamental cause of the economic problem in this country.
That fundamental cause is, of course, the war. And the contributory cause of our difficulties in Germany is the same as the contributory cause of our difficulties here. That contributory cause is the policy of His Majesty's Government. The Government are pursuing in Germany exactly the same policy that they are pursuing here. They are pursuing a policy of control and restriction, and are getting themselves bogged down by the same rigid insistence on party dogma. The same sort of thing is happening here as is happening in Germany.
Let me take the question of control and restriction. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley dealt with that when he quoted from the "Lloyds Bank Review" article by Mr. Stamp, and he explained how the German economy was completelyparalysed by control and restriction. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Finsbury said he agreed with my right hon. Friend about denazification of German industry, and then he went on to show quite clearly that he had not agreed with it at all and that, indeed, he had not understood it. However, it is a fact, whether you are speaking of this country or of Germany, that if you remove incentives, if you destroy the free operation of the market, you get a condition of paralysis from which it is impossible to get any revival of industry.
We talk here a great deal, and with justice, about the difficulties Germany is in through lack of food and lack of coal, and those difficulties are indeed, as we all recognise, immensely great. But the fundamental cause of the paralysis of the German economy is just that cause to which Mr. Stamp draws attention, the fact that both prices and wages were stabilised by Hitler in 1936 and have remained stabilised under the control of this Government ever since That means, as I think hon. Members recognise, that money has ceased to have any function whatever to perform. It means that there is no incentive, either for the manufacturer or for the working man to produce goods. It means that the whole incentive is the other way—the incentive is for both the industrialist and the working man to refrain from producing goods. Until the German economy is denazified, and as a condition of denazification that there must be currency reform, until currency reform is instituted, there is no possible chance of reviving a German economy.
It is not only in their attitude towards control that this Government are pursuing the same policy in Germany as here. It is their attitude towards the dogmas in which they have been brought up in their political lives. There is, for example the question of denazification. It must surely be clear to hon. Members opposite—it is clear I know to some of them, but it must be becoming clear to all of them—that if denazification is continued indefinitely, it is bound to defeat its own purpose. It may remove Nazis and supposed Nazis from any kind of control of Germany,

but it also means that a vested interest is being built up against our Government of Germany, and it means that all the most efficient elements in German life are removed from any part in the reconstruction of Germany. That applies especially now in the field of agriculture. Food production is one of the major problems to be faced, and how on earth are we to get maximum production of food from our zone if the wholesale process of denazification is going on among German agriculturists? As far as I know that process is going on. I know that the last time I raised this subject in the House some six months ago, the then Chancellor of the Duchy said it was going on, and said it was a very good thing that it should be going on. It may be a good thing for many reasons, but it is not a good thing if it is one of the principal objectives of the Government to raise the production of food inside our zone; and I take it that that is one of our main objectives. Agrarian reform, may or may not be a good thing in the long run. But it is certain that splitting up large and moderate estates now, is not going to have a beneficial effect on agricultural production. It is certain that it is going to have a retrograde effect, and agricultural production will go down.
Then there is the question of nationalisation to which more than one hon. Member has referred. It may be that there is a demand among the German political parties for nationalisation of coal and the heavy industries generally. I understand there was a demand among the coal miners of this country for nationalisation for the British coal industry. Whatever one may say of the virtues of nationalisation, in this country one can definitely say it has not produced the coal it was expected to produce by those who favoured it at the General Election.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Give it time.

Mr. Law: The hon. Member says "Give it time." But I would ask him to cast his mind back to the same time after the first world war, to the twenties, and he will find that after the release of the mines from Government control there was a tremendous spurt in the production of coal. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the six months' strike?"] I wish I could have a categorical assurance that there was not going to be a six months' strike in this country now. Let me put this


point to hon. Members opposite, and in particular to the hon. Member for West Coventry, who had the grace to say that nationalisation by itself was not the cure-all that some people thought it, or words to that effect. But he insisted on the nationalisation proposals of the Government going through in Germany. At the same time he said it was absolutely necessary that the Americans should take over some of the burden that we are carrying, and that if they did not take over some of that burden we ourselves could not carry on with it single handed. He hoped that we would make it quite clear in Washington that we would have to hand over some of that burden to the Americans. I think what he is saying is probably very sound sense, but if he wants Americans to accept that burden, and if he is sincere in that, it is fantastic at the same time to insist that the Americans should adopt a policy, namely, nationalisation, that we know is anathema to them.
I am sorry to refer to the hon. Member for Finsbury again, but he is a member of the Labour Party, at least I think he is; at any rate, he was elected as such at the General Election. He made a rather woolly reply, the only reply which has been given, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley, and said that my right hon. Friend's conclusions were so vague and dreamlike that they did not really make much sense. I am not quoting his exact words, but that was the gist of his argument. It is quite clear that he did not understand the suggestion my right hon. Friend made. In the few minutes that remain to me I would like to amplify that suggestion. My right hon. Friend was suggesting that that in the Marshall offer, with the refusal of the Russians to co-operate in the Marshall plan, and with the acceptance of Western Germany as part of the field of the Marshall plan, we had a unique opportunity, which we have neglected, of surveying anew the whole field of our policy in Germany, of surveying it not from the point of view of any Department in this Government, but from the point of view of the Governments of the United States, France and Britain together. The Marshall plan has given us a unique opportunity of doing that. My right hon. Friend went on to suggest

that, that being so, we might well adopt the form of organisation which was known as S.H.A.E.F., which we adopted with so much success in the war. The only difference now would be that whereas S.H.A.E.F. was an Anglo-American institution, the new S.H.A.E.F., which my right hon. Friend was proposing would be an Anglo-American-French institution.
I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Finsbury did not understand what my right hon. Friend meant by the S.H.A.E.F. organisation, and I dare say that there may be other hon. Members who are not clear about it either. What it means in effect is that there is one head of a combined organisation who takes decisions affecting the three Western zones of Germany, that there is one Control Commission, made up of three different nationalities. And this new organisation, with a common loyalty and a common purpose, is likely to be far more effective than three separate organisations trying to run the three zones.
I think the House will agree that there are definite advantages in the S.H.A.E.F. set-up. In the first place, there can be obtained, with the minimum of friction and delay, a clear-cut decision. Look at what has been happening about the level of industry plan, for example. There is a long wrangle between ourselves and the Americans, we publish our findings in a demi-official way, by so doing we upset our French partners, and we then have to withdraw our findings and arrange a meeting in Washington some distance ahead. All that kind of delay would be cut out if we had the "S.H.A.E.F." organisation. It has advantages for Germany, because now in Germany, in the combined zones, the Germans have to deal with three separate sets of authorities. Not unnaturally they find that baffling and confusing. Then there is a saving in manpower. It is quite obvious that if there was such a combined organisation there would be a tremendous saving in what one might call the overheads of manpower. There would not have to be three officers doing every single job right the way down the line. It could be done through one officer, who might be American, French or British.
Finally, it seems to me that the great advantage of the S.H.A.E.F. system, as it was proposed by my right hon. Friend,


is that it does fully take account of the special position and the special difficulties of the French. We all know that the French have a special attitude towards this problem which differs from the American attitude and even from our own. The French have had, at the hands of Germany, a particularly bitter experience, and they must look with some suspicion on our efforts to build up, as we must build up, the German economy. They must fear that that economy may get beyond our control, and may become a threat to France herself. The only way we can bring France into the control of Germany, with full satisfaction to herself, and with all those safeguards to which she is entitled, is by developing this S.H.A.E.F. organisation, as it was outlined by my right hon. Friend at the beginning of the Debate this afternoon. I hope that the Foreign Secretary, if he replies to nothing else, will be able to assure the House that even at this late hour the suggestion which my right hon. Friend made will have the fullest consideration by him.

8.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I should be the last person to show any discourtesy to right hon. Gentlemen opposite or to the House, but I think that it is a very desirable thing to hear what everybody has to say and then to try to answer any criticisms that may have been advanced. I thought that that was the purpose of a Supply Day. To ask me to reply to criticisms before they are made seems almost to be asking for the impossible. Therefore, I have adopted the policy in Debates on international affairs either to make an opening statement and set forth policy or, if a Supply Day is taken, to try to answer at the end. I think that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

Mr. Law: Would it not have been possible for some other Minister to have intervened earlier in the Debate so that we would have known the general line of Government policy?

Mr. Bevin: I did not know what the right hon. Gentleman wanted to know. I thought that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite knew all about it. I thought they were going to tell us all about it. It was because I thought that

they knew all about it and I was anxious to learn, that I took this line. In order not to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, may I deal with the last point about S.H.A.E.F.? Really, I never heard more muddled thinking in my life. In one breath I am told to develop democracy in Germany, to give Germany responsibility, help them to get into power, help them to manage their own affairs, and at the same time I am asked to perpetuate a military dictatorship over them by S.H.A.E.F. Remember, S.H.A.E.F. was a military dictatorship. No one had a word to say when General Eisenhower held that position. No citizen in any of the countries could say a word. General Eisenhower was the supreme commander. A supreme commander is right in war; I do not think it is the right system when we begin to build for peace.

Mr. H. Macmillan: There are three now.

Mr. Bevin: Let us assume that there are three—that makes a trinity. We have also built underneath and around it—and we intend this to supersede it—the local government for which hon. Gentlemen opposite asked, and which they condemn us for trying to build. In the administration of Germany we have been trying to hand more and more power over to the Germans. The Americans, as well as ourselves, have been very keen in this field. With regard to the breakdown of machinery, about which hon. Members opposite complained, my own view is that with the very great shortages in the world we handed over certain functions probably a little too quickly. After all, Germany had been under the Nazi regime. I am now told that it is wrong to de-nazify. According to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law), I should not put these people out of office. I should allow them to go on. But they were under the Nazis. They had the very highest offices in the State. We had to remove them, and I ask the House to remember that we had to bring back many men to take charge who had been in concentration camps for a considerable time. Therefore, I do not feel disposed to go back to the S.H.A.E.F. organisation. I think it is right to go forward, not backward. I think the right thing to do, probably, is to take steps, stage by stage, until ultimately we have got a proper Government for Germany,


a Government with which we can deal. That may be a long way ahead, but we shall reach it in time.
I have heard something today—and I forget which hon. Member said it—which shocked me. I want to say at the outset how much it shocked me, and I hope it will shock the country. He was telling us that Germany was so down and out, or so demoralised, that I could act on the assumption that Germany could not fight, at any rate, for 15 years. I do sincerely hope that our action will not be based on a policy which presumes that the strength of Germany is to be so rebuilt, and our security so endangered that we have the danger of another war in the West in 15 years. I should be extremely sorry if this House took that view. The reason I mentioned this is because this problem of Germany has to be dealt with on two objectives, very carefully worked out.
It has been said that it has all been influenced by the words "unconditional surrender," to which, by the way, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) said the Coalition Government agreed. We never heard of it until it was over. I do not know whether even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) ever heard of it until it was said. Those words were said at a particular conference and went out to the world, and the first I saw of them was in the morning Press. That is an historical fact. Those words became the cry of the world. I do not say that we would have repudiated them at that stage of the war. I would not have done it; I am not going to be accused now of doing it. It has never crossed our minds since we have been in office and have been dealing with Germany. Moreover, I do not think that, if those words had never been heard, it would have made any difference as to how the war ended. I believe that Hitler made up his mind either to win or to bring Germany down in a shambles, and he brought Germany down in a shambles. I do not think it makes any difference at all; so we will not quarrel over that, or say any more about it. I just want to put on record the historical fact that it has certainly never crossed our minds to repudiate it.
Our minds have been influenced by an attempt to get economic unity in Germany. This was worked out with tremendous

care. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford was on the same committee as myself in doing it, and he sat with me long, long hours, I am afraid. In that task we went forward with two objectives. One was to give a decent. reasonable standard of life to Germany and at the same time to make sure of our own security. That was done by what was known as the Armistice and Postwar Committee, on which the work was carried out in very great detail, and from which, so far as I am concerned, we have never deviated.

Mr. Law: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford. Was he not referring to myself?

Mr. Bevin: I am sorry; I meant the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington. I got a bit mixed up. Therefore, when we went to Potsdam, after the Election when hon. Gentlemen opposite were counted out, we then had to take on this job. The question of reparations was raised—and all those other problems which had been discussed before I arrived there—and all through those discussions, in the three or four days that I was there, we had in mind the maintaining of a decent level for Germany, and, at the same time, the question of security. The basis of those considerations was, in fact, decided at Yalta, followed up, as I say, by Potsdam.
What has happened? Can any hon. Member of this House, from whatever bench, Left or Right, say that I have not stuck hard and fast in the struggle to maintain the economic unity of Germany with a view to building a decent Europe? But, first of all, the French objected—and I have no complaint to make about that—to the central agencies for Germany. Hence, they never operated. The other principle was that the East of Germany should contribute their food to the West, and that the West should contribute their goods to the East, and so get as near a balance of payments in Germany as we possibly could. Russia did not co-operate; hence, we have been left with self-contained zones. It is now suggested that, at this stage, His Majesty's Government should take the unenviable decision to recognise that Europe was now permanently divided—whether we were asked to do it or not. I think the right hon.
Member for Bromley said it should not be Britain's initiative to do it, yet, somehow, we should go on as if it is done. I do not think I am misinterpreting what he intended to convey.

Mr. H. Macmillan: It is such an important point of historical accuracy that I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. What I said was that I thought we must accept, and, indeed, might at some time have accepted that, in fact, there was a de facto partition of Germany—not of the world—but that we should not accept it de jure, and that we should not accept the responsibility for having caused it, but that we must, from the practical and economic point of view, accept it as a de facto situation.

Mr. Bevin: There is not much difference between what the right hon. Gentleman said and what I said. De facto and de jure have a very close relation. If one proceeds on the assumption that it is an accomplished fact, then it is very difficult to retrieve; one cannot go back. That is the situation. I tried for six weeks in Moscow to avoid accepting that position, and I say quite frankly that I am not accepting it now, and that I am not going to act between now and November as if that were the situation, and that we should proceed accordingly. When the Moscow Conference adjourned, it had under consideration certain proposals. We agreed to meet again in November to discuss those proposals, the basis of which is the economic unity of Germany. Until I have gone through that Conference, I am not going to take the step, which is fraught with so much danger for Europe and the world, without finally having come to the conclusion that there is no other course.

Mr. Molson: Job is not in in it compared with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bevin: No, he may not be, but the life of the nation is not summed up in three months, and does not depend on the taking of a step in three months. We waited months and months—from 1935 to 1939—for hon. Members opposite to take the step. Therefore, if I have to wait three months before the die is finally cast, I think it is a statesman's business to do so, and I do not propose to follow the temptation which has been put to me today.

Mr. Molson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bevin: I am sorry; I have only a short time. Therefore, on the question of the economic unity of Germany, I—and, indeed, His Majesty's Government—will make a supreme effort at the November Conference. That does not mean that we have done nothing. As I have announced to this House before, and as has been conveniently forgotten today, I took the line in Paris that if there could be no unity we must make our zone pay and relieve ourselves of this liability. Then came the fusion, and we invited the French to join. What power have I to make the French come in? Some people appear to assume that we only have to talk to the French and they will come in. But the French have great political difficulties to overcome. Then it is said that we ought to do everything possible to remove French apprehension. What more can His Majesty's Government do than they have done? First, in connection with the Ruhr, we tried one scheme, but we were told that the policy of the French then, in 1945, was to detach the Ruhr. His Majesty's Government have been against the detachment of the Ruhr. We have at the same time, been concerned with how to give security to the French.
Then the question of the Saar was raised. We have gone as far as we could, within the terms of Allied agreements, to give France satisfaction on the question of the Saar, even to the extent of introducing a new currency area to assist her in her difficulties. We are also considering an adjustment of the reparations problem in relation to the Saar, in order to meet the French position. In addition, we signed the Treaty of Dunkirk. That treaty was signed with great solemnity and, I hope, with the full and everlasting support of the British people—a thing which ought to have been done after the 1914–18 war; if it had been, it might have changed the course of history.
I have noted that opinion is moving. The first discussion took place on the level of industry required to give Germany a standard of life; I proposed the provision of some yardstick, which was given as 11 million tons of steel. That would have given about the standard which existed prior to the Hitler regime, when working for peacetime purposes, and before the


acceleration in preparation for the war. That figure of 11 million tons was also intended to enable—and I am satisfied that it would—the carrying out of rebuilding and rehabilitation, and it would not have endangered security. But what were we faced with? For nearly a year we were faced with what was known as the Morgenthau policy of the United States. That policy was to pastoralise Germany, and, therefore, the figure in respect of steel production was put as low as 5.8 million tons. This is not a question only of how much steel is to be produced. It is a measure, the yardstick, by which all other industries are measured throughout the whole territory. That, in our view, was so low that it would not only have meant preventing Germany from recreating itself, but, in the end, would have been quite impracticable. We worked away, and finally there was a Four Power agreement for 7,500,000 tons capacity as a basis. That 7,500,000 tons involved the destruction of factories far below a level which I think is necessary to maintain a decent life in Germany. It also involved us in this very fine definition of what is wartime industry and what is peacetime industry. At one moment it may be production for war and at another time it may be production for peace, all from the same factories.
Therefore, we have been persistently pressing the French and the United States of America and Russia for a higher level. In Moscow the Russians suddenly proposed. between 10 and 12 million tons, and the United States thought of 10, 12 or 13 million tons as the basis—for the first time. The French, while recognising the figure had to be placed higher, were not willing to go to that length. The Moscow Conference broke down, and the United States and ourselves have been working out an entirely new plan. That plan is based on—for our zone—just over 10 million tons. Now, it is said that the destruction of factories in Germany is a devastating thing. We did agree—and I think it was quite right—to take what are called Category I war plants and get rid of them as quickly as we could. To keep the thing hanging about, neither moving it nor doing anything with it, merely letting it deteriorate, and not to meet the legitimate obligations of those who have a

right to reparations, is a mistaken policy. Therefore, we agreed to clear that lot right out of the way by the end of June, 1948. But when the new plan was evolved and agreed, then there was to be a review of what are called Categories 2, 3 and 4—which alters the whole standard of German production.
It is said we go on and discuss it, and refer it back, and so on. It did not get referred back, really, on that basis at all. There came forward at about this time the discussions on an entirely new basis of the Marshall proposal; and, therefore, the French, who were engaged in this problem, felt that they should be consulted and have their say about what the final solution should be. In that we have agreed, and the matter is postponed for the time being. But I did notice that in a speech in the Chamber in Paris this week M. Bidault seemed to be making, for the first time a rather different approach to the whole German problem from any I have seen from the French angle up to now. Therefore, I am hopeful, when these new discussions take place, and we know whether the French are coming in with us, to combine the three zones or whether on the other hand we are to have economic unity, that we shall be able to determine what the final situation is.
Reference has been made to the' Marshall Plan."I keep repeating: There is no" Marshall Plan ";there never has been; Mr. Marshall's speech was a very simple statement. He wanted to deal with Europe as a whole, and he wanted to deal with it on the basis that Europe—and this is the answer to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills), for instead of the United States rushing forward to dominate Europe, the reverse is the case—should ascertain what it can do for itself and, having ascertained that, tell the Americans what they can do for Europe. I do not detect in that any note of domination from Wall Street, or anywhere else. The hon. Member says that so often, and so many times, that he makes himself believe it, and hopes that other people will also. In any case, at the Paris Conference I did not find a single Government, including Soviet Russia, not willing to take credit from the United States. They objected to the form of determining what we could do by ourselves, and getting supplementary aid. It was on


that that the Conference broke down, and not on the principle whether or not we should have credit from the United States. I want to make that quite clear.
What part must Germany play in this? Obviously, with the November Conference and the future of Germany as a State to be determined, we cannot now deal with Germany in this category as a State. Therefore, we decided to utilise the commanders-in-chief, with their organisation, and asked them to submit to us at the Paris talks what, in their view, Germany's contribution could be, not only to herself but to Europe. With those figures, the Paris Conference is taking that into account, in common with all the other countries who are parties to the Marshall discussions now going on in Paris. I think I have said sufficient to indicate that we have tried to preserve the position of not recognising Germany as a State in the discussions—contrary to all that has been said in the Press—but merely taking the zone and the information available there and out of that, together with the Benelux countries, Italy, France and the rest, and ourselves, determining the total production of which we are capable, and what we can contribute over the next four years to a restoration of equilibrium in the world. That is the way in which Germany fits into the economic discussions, and I think His Majesty's Government have pursued a sound policy.
Now I have been told in the Debate that we ought to have more production, more food and more raw materials; but in the same breath complaint is made about the expenditure of dollars. Can anyone in this House tell me where I can get this food and raw materials except from dollar countries? I should like to discover it. In the last two years we have had virtually two famines. We have had the failure of the monsoons in India, and we have had two droughts. During the last two years, since the close of the war, the world has been terribly short of food. The only part of the world where there has been abundance has been in the Western hemisphere. I could not say, if I were a capitalist, as was whispered under breath just now, that Providence did that because it happened to be a capitalist country. It was a fact that the Australian harvest and the great expansion in her production had to be used in total for

the Eastern hemisphere because of the failure of rice. The Allocations Committee, which has been operating in Washington, has been pestered to death for food for Germany, and they have not been held up because of lack of dollars during this year. I realise that it was a great cost on our dollar pool, but that has not been withheld. The fact is that we could not get it, and, therefore, even in our own case we were faced with a situation last year of having to introduce bread rationing—because we could not get grain for ourselves. And so the combination of this cereal position has been really disastrous for the world.
I should like to make one point clear in this connection. His Majesty's Government have been urging the shipment of more food to Germany, and in so far as it lies within their power to obtain raw materials, or in so far as they can obtain them without dollar purchases and without involving a dollar drain from the sterling area, they are ready to make their contribution, but what they cannot do, when this present scheme runs out, is to spend any more dollars for this particular purpose. Therefore, it does involve discussions and a review, in order to devise other plans.
With regard to production, contrary to what was said this afternoon, production was rising. In coal, we had reached 238,000 tons a day when the food shortage made itself felt. You can criticise Governments or administrations, and say what you like about them, but it is frightfully difficult to get people to turn out a hard day's work when they are fed below 1,000 calories. You simply cannot do it, and that is the brutal fact. At the present moment it is 1,250, and we are trying to build it up to 1,550. In preparation for the winter, we are endeavouring to put in stock piles to guarantee 1,550. We are aiming, if funds and food supplies warrant, to get 1,800 as a minimum. There would be more for the heavier and more manual workers, such as steel and coal workers—a calorie value of 2,800. That is for the man, but the family is still on the minimum of 1,800. And so, with the greatest effort in the world in organisation, with a food standard of that kind it is almost impossible to get maximum production. The House should face that. We are now engaged in discussions


with the United States to remedy this situation. As to indigenous resources in Germany, it was said that they would return roughly about 1,000 calories. That figure was too high, and planning for next year has rather taken another basis—the building up of the amount that can be produced by a planned internal agricultural economy so as to reduce to as small a margin as possible the sum that has to be paid for food from abroad while leaving the dollars or other currency we have for raw materials for manufacture.
I have been asked about the return of prisoners of war to Germany—a subject in which everybody is interested. The retention of these prisoners in this country is a great advantage, even to Germany. By using German prisoners in our own agriculture we increase the total world supply, which lessens our having to draw so much from abroad and allows more for other people. I hope there will not be any wrong idea about this problem. Further, these prisoners are looked after, and the housing problem in Germany is so bad that when they get back they have to be absorbed gradually, and accommodation built up if the best use is to be made of them on their return. Physically, these prisoners are not being injured; I do not think anyone would say that German prisoners in this country were being injured, or that their lives are any worse than they would be if they were now in the Ruhr. We are building up as fast as we can all the resources that are available in that country.
I have been asked about socialisation. I have been charged, with great authority, by the hon. Member for Finsbury who said that I had sold the pass. I can only say that, old as I am, and whatever charges are brought against me, I have never sold the pass to anyone. Our policy is the same as it always has been—the public ownership of the Ruhr industries. It is not a theoretical problem. Who will own them if the public do not? Are they going back to the syndicates? Will any Member opposite tell the country that the factories should go back to the Krupps family, or any suchlike family? Are they to be handed over to international capital? What is France going to say? What will happen from the point of view of security, if there is no control? No, I can see the building

up of these industries under a new management, on good lines, but the actual vesting of the property should, I think, be in public hands.

Mr. Molson: The right hon. Gentleman says that they should be in public hands. Are the factories to be the property of Germany, or an international consortium?

Mr. Bevin: That has to be determined. Members opposite smile easily, but unintelligently. There are certain interests, and not all in America, which have asked us for time for discussion. I should not have been doing my duty if I had not allowed time. We have postponed the matter to try to get discussion of this problem. I do not desire the House to commit me to this, but there are two or three ideas floating about. In the management of these great mines, public ownership by the Landtag is one view; public ownership by the zones, if there is not a united Germany, is another view; and, on top of that, international control—a sort of three tiers: one, management; one, ownership; and one, control; or it may be mixed. The views have to be heard in order to work this thing out. The policy of the French has hitherto been a four Power control of the Ruhr. I have taken the view that I should not be a party to four Power control of the Ruhr unless there were four Power control over all German industry, whether it was the Eastern zone or the Western, and on that it has broken down. Now the French seem to be moving, in the light of M. Bidault's speech, along another line. It is not our business as an occupying Power to assume that we can force our views on all these countries, but we have a right to our ideas, and our idea is that, in some form, it has to remain in public hands.
I am asked about de-nazification. We have de-nazified in the coal industry. The other matters are still being discussed under the Four Power arrangement. I issued a statement reassuring the Germans on this point some time ago. At Moscow, all four Powers agreed to instruct the Allied Control Council to set a date for the whole process of de-nazification to finish. I am now awaiting that date, and a waiting that decision, and after that any matter of this kind is to be left to the Land Government.
Therefore, I can only say a word to the Germans themselves—I have not time


to refer to Austria and the Tyrol, but I will write to my hon. Friend on that matter—we have no desire to perpetuate any spirit of revenge so far as the German people are concerned. We believe that, by careful handling, Germany can be turned from a war-like, aggressive nation, into a peaceful nation, entering into the comity of peoples of Europe as a whole. To that end, we shall work. The quicker

the Germans themselves accept that view and work with a will—as was said to Italy, "Work their passage back," as well as being helped back—the quicker we shall obtain our objective.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 298; Noes, 102.

Palmer, A. M. F
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Pargiter, G. A.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Viant, S. P.


Parkin, B. T.
Simmons, C. J.
Wadsworth, G.


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Skeffington, A. M.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Pearson, A.
Skefhngton-Lodge, T. C
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamslow, E.)


Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Skinnard, F. W.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Weilzman, D.


Porter, E (Warrington)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Price, M. Philips
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
West, D. G.


Pritt, D. N.
Sparks, J. A.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. W


Proctor, W. T.
Stamford, W.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Pryde, D. J.
Stephen, C.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Pursey, Cmdr. H
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Ranger, J.
Strachey, J.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Wilkes, L.


Reeves, J.
Stross, Dr. B.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Reid T. (Swindon)
Stubbs, A. E.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Rhodes, H.
Swingler, S.
Williams, J. L. Kelvingrove)


Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Symonds, A. L.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Rogers, G. H. R.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Willis, E.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Royle, C.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wilson, J. H.


Sargood, R
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wise, Major F. J


Scollan, T
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Woodburn, A


Scott-Elliot, W.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Woods, G. S.


Segal, Dr. S.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wyatt, W.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Yates, V. F


Sharp, Granville
Thurtle, Ernest
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Tiffany, S.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Titterington, M. F.
Zilliacus, K.


Shinwell Rt. Hon. E
Tolley, L.



Shurmer, P.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Head, Brig. A. H,
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Pickthorn, K.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pitman, I J


Beamish, Maj. T. V H
Hope, Lord J.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bennett, Sir P
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Nigel
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J
Ramsay, Major S.


Boles, Lt.-Col. O. C. (Wells)
Hurd, A.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jarvis, Sir J
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Braithwaite, Lt-Comdr. J. G.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Sanderson, Sir F


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shepherd W. S. (Bucklow)


Challen, C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Channon H.
law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Strauss, H G. (English Universities)


Cole, T. L.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crowder, Capt. John E
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor. Vice-Adm E A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)
Teeling, William


Digby, S. W
Mackeson, Brig H. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thorneycroft, G. E P (Monmouth)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Drayson, G. B.
Marples, A. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, D.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Maude, J. C.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Mellor, Sir J.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbrailh, Cmdr. T. D.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gammans, L. D.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gridley, Sir A.
Nicholson, G.
York, C


Grimston, R. V.
Nield, B. (Chester)



Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.

It being after Half-past Nine o'Clock. Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, as modified by the Order made upon 12th November, to put forthwith the Questions:

"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I, to X of the Civil Estimates, and the Revenue Department Estimates, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates and the Air Estimates."

[For details of the remaining Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 748–754.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1947–48

CLASS I

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE

Question
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS II

FOREIGN AND IMPERIAL

Question
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS III

HOME DEPARTMENT, LAW AND JUSTICE

Question
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS IV

EDUCATION AND BROADCASTING

Question
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates.
put and agreed to.

CLASS V

HEALTH, HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, LABOUR AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Question
' That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution

reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,
put and agreed to.

CLASS VI

TRADE, INDUSTRY AND TRANSPORT

Question
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates,
put and agreed to.

CLASS VII

COMMON SERVICES (WORKS, STATIONERY, ETC.)

Question
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,
put and agreed to.

CLASS VIII

NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES (PENSIONS)

Question
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS IX

EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL REVENUES

Question
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates.
put and agreed to.

CLASS X

SUPPLY, FOOD AND MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES

Question
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class X of the Civil Estimates,
put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES. 1947–48

Question
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,
put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NAVY ESTIMATES, 1947–48

Question
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ARMY ESTIMATES, 1947–48

Question
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates,

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AIR ESTIMATES, 1947–48

Question
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates,

put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [31st July]

Resolution reported:
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, the sum of £1,525,682,403 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Glenvil Hall.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament "; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL

Considered in Committee and reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — WIRELESS SETS AND VALVES (PURCHASE TAX)

Resolved:
That the Purchase Tax (Charges) (No. 2) Order, 1947 (S. R. O., 1947, No. 1613), dated 29th July, 1947, made by the Treasury

under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which Order was presented on 29th July, be approved."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

947 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
I ought to say for the guidance of the House that there are 84 Amendments on the Order Paper. Of these 40 are drafting or preparing the way for the consolidation of Part III of the Bill with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, while a further 15 are consequential. Of the remaining 25, which cover some points of substance as well as some of minor importance, there are Amendments moved by the Opposition in the Lords and accepted by the Government or moved by the Government to meet points raised by the Opposition. In addition, there are four Amendments inserted by the Opposition with which I propose to disagree. These four Amendments cover three points. The Bill was carefully scrutinised by the Lords, and many minor improvements have been made, but on the three points referred to the Government cannot accept the views of their Lordships' House.

Question put, and agreed to. Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 14.—(Directions to secure good estate management and good husbandry.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 6, at end, insert:
Provided that no direction shall be given either while a supervision order is in force or otherwise which shall alter the character of a holding from that which existed when the contract or tenancy agreement was made.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Collick): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I would direct the attention of hon. Members particularly to the words of this Amendment. The effect is clearly to provide that no direction for the provision.
improvement, maintenance or repair of fixed equipment should be given to an owner or farmer, whether or not they are under supervision, which should change the character of the holding from what it was when the original tenancy agreement was made. We find ourselves quite unable to accept this Amendment. We must have regard to the fact that there are farms where it may well be necessary for directions to be given for the provision or the maintenance or repair of fixed equipment which may have the effect of changing the character of the holding. We are all familar, I am sure, with cases of grassland farms that were virtually ranched before the war, where the changing circumstances of agriculture have determined that they must no longer be just grass farms, but where it has been desirable to see that there is a certain amount of arable farming there. It may well happen that, where those circumstances arise and some of that farmland is turned into arable farm land, it may be necessary for the Minister to give a direction for some provision of fixed equipment or the like. Therefore, we say it would be quite wrong for the House to accept this Amendment, which would make any such direction as that impossible because it would have the effect of changing the character of the holding.
We take the view that the persons who will decide whether or not a direction should be so given will be the county agricultural executive committee. Those county committees are made up of responsible agriculturists, and we feel quite certain, and the House can feel quite assured, that no responsible county agricultural executive committee will give any direction to change the character of the holding unless in their collective wisdom there is some real reason for doing so. It is just because we prefer to put our faith, rightly, in those committees in a matter of this kind that we feel that it would be wrong to accept the Amendment.
I ask the House to realise what this Amendment would mean in practice. It would mean, in effect, that once a tenancy has been created—and in the nature of the case there are many tenancies which run for a considerable number of years—circumstances may arise where it would be quite impossible to adopt any of the changing practices of agriculture, ley farming and all the rest of it, which might

well mean a direction to make some provision of capital equipment or the like. The one accepted thing about agriculture, irrespective of party viewpoint, is the fact that agriculture is a changing science and that the changing years have been changing agriculture practices. We feel it would be quite wrong in the circumstances to allow ourselves to be tied by this Amendment which would mean that, as agriculture changes, once the tenancy has been created, however long it ran, we would be debarred from giving a direction to change the character of the holding. For those reasons I ask the House not to accept the Amendment which comes from another place.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: I am sorry that the Government are moved to reject this Amendment which comes from another place, and I am particularly sorry because it is the first occasion for a long time that we have had the pleasure of hearing the Parliamentary Secretary back in his place again resuming his discussion of agricultural matters. Really this Amendment deals with a question of principle, and it is on a question of principle that I shall ask my hon. Friends on this side to divide the House. The Parliamentary Secretary based his argument in rejecting this Amendment on the county agricultural committees. We take the contrary view, and believe that any change in the tenancy agreements which might have been made in this regard should be made by agreement between the landlord and the tenant. We believe that the landlord and the tenant having freely entered into a "contract binding on both parties, that contract should remain. Every holding has certain characteristics, and we can assume that those characteristics were taken into account when the original tenancy was created. It is altogether wrong that some outside body, even the county agricultural committee, should be able to import into the tenancy agreement fresh obligations on the landlord. We agree that on the short-term view, there are provisions in the Bill for going to arbitration on this subject, but we are concerned with the long-term agreement.
When there is a change of tenancy, the character of the whole holding may have been altered by direction under this Clause. Is it to be the landlord's duty possibly to reconvert the holding at his


own expense 10 the original kind of farming according to the original tenancy, although he may have been directed to do things which have not been successful? It is on the long-term view that hon. Members on this side of the House are worried. All hon. Members are agreed that farming is most diverse in activity. Practically every holding is different in regard to the treatment it requires for maximum production. It may be that the fashion today is for mixed farming and to go in for pig production and pig breeding. That may be because of the shortage of fats at present, and the tenant who asks that his fixed equipment shall be transformed into suitable accommodation for pig breeding, will have the support of the county agricultural committee, and of the Minister. He may start on his pig breeding and then find there is no suitable bacon factory near his home, or he does not make a success of that side of the industry. All he has to do is to give a year's notice to quit, and at the end of the year the holding comes back into the hands of the landlord. It may be that before he can get another tenant to take on the holding the landlord will have to reconvert the buildings to that type of farming to which it had been accustomed. I could refer to the difficulties which arise in transferring from beef to milk, or from milk to beef, all of which costs money.
10.0 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary based his case for refusing the Amendment on the wisdom of the county executive committees, whereas we on this side of the House, whilst agreeing that the county executive committees might be, and we hope will be, of great assistance to the industry under the operation of the Bill, think very profoundly that the final responsibility should be with the owner of the property in this particular instance. In this, we have a definite division of opinion between the two sides of the House. We cannot get away from it it goes far beyond this Amendment, it goes far beyond the considerations in this Bill. I do not intend to argue the pros and cons of nationalisation, but the question comes within this Amendment—the question of Government control or free enterprise. We believe that under free enterprise the man who has the financial

responsibility to meet is the right person to take the responsibility in this case. For that reason we feel we must go into the Division Lobby in opposition to the Government on this matter. This is a question of the Government interfering in a contract, which has been readily accepted, between the landlord and the tenant, and saying that they are justified in so doing. We do not believe they are justified in so doing, and for that reason, we oppose the Government.

Mr. Hurd: I should like to add a word to what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) has said, because, while we on this side of the House fully recognise the need for directions in certain cases to require good farming and good estate management, we feel that the direction for the proper use of the farm or estate should concern its proper use as it is laid out, partly by nature and partly by man in the past—the farm as it stands. My hon. and gallant Friend gave one instance of what might happen, an instance of a farmer getting round the county committee and persuading them to allow a pretty big expenditure probably on pig fattening plant. Today it might be for grain growing, because there are large parts of the country where it might be argued that if the land is to be efficiently farmed, there must be proper grain-drying plant, which would involve considerable expenditure running into several thousands of pounds. Yet there is no certainty that what is deemed necessary now for the efficient economical farming of that particular land will be deemed necessary in two, three or five years' time. I would remind the Minister of what he said in Cheshire on Saturday—that we wanted to get away from cereals, potato and sugar beet and concentrate on livestock.
Let us assume that an estate owner has been required to finance this improvement, and then there is a change in national policy, which might be highly desirable; he is left to "carry the baby." That farm will not be worth as much as it would be if it could be readily converted to livestock farming under some change of Government policy. It is true that the Minister would not make this direction without consulting the county agricultural committee, and if those committees were to be masters in their own


house, that would be all right. In the Bill, however, county committees are the agents of the Minister, and the tendency is to get more and more direction from the centre. Although there is this provision to say that nothing shall be done, or that it is understood that nothing shall be done, without the recommendation of the county committee, that may mean, in point of fact, some admirable official sitting in Whitehall deciding that it is the proper thing for grain drying plant to be provided. The local committee being the Minister's agents, if they do not do what he says is the proper thing, they will lose their jobs, for what that might be worth.

Mr. Alpass: Is it not clear in the Bill that if that expenditure exceeds the rent, the landlord will have the right of appeal to a tribunal?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, there is that provision, but rents are likely to be moving upwards. Therefore, the limit under this Clause may move upwards, and may be quite considerable. We on this side of the House feel that if the necessary re-equipment cannot be done economically without changing the whole character of the farm, and the owner or the farmer under direction has failed to show the necessary improvement without altering the character of the farm, he should be dispossessed—there is ample power in the Bill—but that he should not be forced, against his own judgment, to undertake a quite considerable expenditure. If the Minister wants to have a gamble, having taken over a farm, by installing grain drying or pig fattening plant, well and good, but he should not have power to require a private owner to speculate his money in that way. I wholly support what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond has said.

Mr. Gerald Williams: I would like to add a few remarks about the case of a tenant who wanted to go in for pig farming in a big way. It might well be, as has been said, that the agricultural executive committee might be very keen to have fats at that time. On the other hand, the Minister of Food might be very keen to have bacon because of the bad bargains which he might have made with other countries. Therefore, the agricultural executive committee will feel inclined to say that the landlord should produce piggeries for his tenant. In a

short time the tenant might find that he was on a bad wicket and the landlord would be left with his piggeries and would have to bear the expense. That decision would have been taken by an agricultural executive committee which might well have been prejudiced by the Ministry of Food or the Ministry of Agriculture. It is because of that prejudiced opinion that we feel that the landlord's consent should be given in every case before these directions are brought about. If a farm is known to be a certain kind of farm, it should be allowed to remain for that purpose. Fashion changes very quickly, and Ministers may also change very quickly. One Minister might be a pig man, another might be a milk man, and the landlord would have to work accordingly.
This power was never considered necessary during the vital war years but, for some reason, it was considered necessary to include it in this Bill. In another case, we might get a tenant who was very keen on breeding horses, perhaps Suffolk Punches. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might think that this was a very fine dollar saving device—to breed horses and to save the import of American tractors. He would pass his opinion to the agricultural executive committee, and again they would be prejudiced in the decisions they had to make. I know that the Minister will say that the committees will be reasonable in all cases and will err on the side of conservatism, but so long as they may be prejudiced by the opinion of a Minister, we are taking a very grave risk. In the long run, a landlord may well think that if there were plenty of feedingstuffs in the country we could produce the milk we require from only three-quarters of the number of cows we have at present. He might think that that happy time is coming very shortly and, therefore, if there is to be a surplus, it is no use him turning his farm over to milk production. The agricultural executive committee might not hold such a long view. They might take a very short view, and the landlord might be put into a difficult position.
This procedure may cause a great deal of ill feeling towards the Minister. If the landlord converts his buildings of his own free will, and finds he has made a mistake, then it is his own fault and he blames himself for his folly. But if he


converts his buildings at the direction of a Minister, he will hold a never-ceasing dislike and hatred of that Minister, and that is a thing which we want to avoid in the future. My final point is that, at the present time, anyhow, there is a great shortage of materials, and the landlord, in his wisdom, by having to give his consent to an improvement, may well tell the Minister that the labour and supplies of materials were not available. I submit that my hon. Friends, in asking for the landlord's consent, are putting forward a suggestion which will not only be wise but advantageous to all concerned.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I do not think it has come as any surprise to the Minister that we on this side of the House, are supporting my hon. and gallant Friend in opposing this Motion. In the Committee stage of this Bill, we expressed considerable apprehension about the scope of the power which the Minister seeks to take in this regard. We endeavoured to reduce it in a very much wider way than is done by this Amendment, but, if we cannot get the whole of what we want, I think we shall, at least, be glad to take as little as is recommended by this Amendment from another place. I very much hope that the arguments which have already been adduced are sufficient in support of the Amendment. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he relies upon the wisdom of the county committees. I agree with him as to their wisdom, but no member of a county committee would claim to be a prophet as opposed to being a farmer.
It may well be that a farmer, whether he be an owner-occupier, a landlord or a tenant farmer, will think, as the county committee members who are his colleagues may also think, that the future of the industry is set in milk production, and, when the question arises, they may well say that it is desirable that a particular farm should turn over to milk production and that the landlord should incur the expense which is necessary nowadays for first-class milk production. Who are they, any more than the hon. Gentlemen or ourselves, to say that milk production will be the profitable enterprise for this country for four, five or 10 years to come? The landlord is not going to be able to recover, in 10 years through his rent, his expenditure on the

expensive outlay required for turning over a farm to milk production. I therefore suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should take this point into consideration.
We all know that it is perfectly practicable, from the physical aspect, for Denmark, which has a surplus of milk, to send milk to this country, to be retailed in London within a shorter space of time than it can be retailed there after having been produced in this country. That is perfectly feasible and possible at the present time, but, equally, at the present time, it is not being done. It is equally certain that producers in this country believe that they are safe in their milk market, and, therefore, the county committee may well say, in their wisdom, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, that it would be a good thing for the tenant farmer to have milk production buildings put up on his farm, and for the landlord to incur the expense. But, if the Government change their mind, and I believe I am right in saying that the present Government have changed their mind from time to time on different matters, and milk is imported into this country from Denmark, the whole policy of agricultural production may be changed overnight. In that case, there would immediately be a loss to the landlord who had erected those buildings, and it would be an irrecoverable loss. The tenant, if he so wishes, may give notice to terminate the tenancy in a year's time, and the landlord would then be unable to re-let the farm at what may be an economic rent. That rent may not be based at all on the value of the buildings which were erected for milk production purposes, because they are no longer required for those purposes. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will see the reason for giving this particular right.
10.15 p.m.
It is no argument whatever to suggest that the county agriculture committees would wish to change the character of the farm, particularly if it is already under supervision. If they have put a farmer under supervision on account of what they consider to be his failure to farm the land properly as an arable farm, they will only be able to supervise him from that point of view. It is no use thinking that they can supervise him from the point of view of a pastoral farmer, and that they can convert the whole of the


farm to pastoral land. The same is true conversely; if they have put a man under supervision as a pastoral farmer, it is no use their saying, while he is under supervision, that he would do better if the land were converted into an arable farm, because the man is not qualified to farm in that way. Therefore, that argument falls to the ground. I hope, therefore, that, as there is no reason whatever for objecting to this provision, and as I am quite sure it is one which the county agriculture committees would themselves welcome, the hon. Gentleman will think again, and will not seek to disagree with this Amendment.

Mr. York: There are practical objections to the Minister's Motion, which have been put before him. Although my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) said that there were fundamental differences between the two sides of the House, I do not think that the Minister really appreciated what those differences mean. We on this side of the House take a very strong view as to the meaning of a contract of tenancy, and we take it on one ground—that these contracts are entered into willingly between the two parties. From the point of view of the owner of the land, they are based upon the long-term interests, not of the owner, but of the land. The owner's job is to protect the long-term interests of the land, which, in turn, protect the interests which the nation may have in the production from that land. The Parliamentary Secretary cited in aid the fact that the county agricultural committees were going to deal with these particular problems. That, in the majority of cases, will be all right, but it is just because we do not believe that every county agricultural committee is going to be perfect that we think a safeguard of the land, and of the general economics of the property, is necessary.
In Yorkshire, no doubt, the doughty Yorkshiremen will see that their committee is under the control of Yorkshire-men, and not under the control of the Minister's servants; but that will not be the case in other parts of the country. There have been cases to my own knowledge where, during the war, committees were run by the officials.

Mr. Alpass: Who appointed them?

Mr. York: Surely, that is beside the point. Whether the appointment was made by a Conservative or a Socialist Minister of Agriculture, does not vitiate my argument in the least. The fact remains, whoever appointed any committee which failed in what I conceive to be its duty, it failed because the officials were allowed to get in charge of the committee. Surely no Minister of Agriculture will be disgusted if he finds that his orders are so implicitly carried out in a committee area. But that is leading me from my main argument. We know that at different times various types of husbandry are of particular importance in the eyes of officialdom, and we know that on those occasions a tenant farmer can make out a very good case for a particular line of business being essential to a farm at that time. I myself have had some unfortunate experiences in that regard, and although I will not now go into them, I may say that there are very plausible farmers who are really not such good businessmen as they might appear, few though they may be. But it is a fact that a very plausible case might be made out for one of the types of production, or alteration, or improvement, mentioned by some of my hon. Friends, which, at that moment, might appear to the committee to be a reasonable proposition, but which would certainly alter the character of the holding. We say categorically that it is wrong that a committee should have the power so to alter the character of a holding in that respect.
Each district within the area of a committee varies considerably. In my own county—in the West Riding, at any rate—the variety in districts is enormous, as the Minister knows very well, and it may well be that the representative on the committee from that particular area which happens to be under review in this connection may disagree with the main committee, but may be in a minority of one. In that case, obviously the majority opinion wins the day, and the local knowledge of the representative from the area under review will be set aside. The Minister may say, "That is all right; the committee have decided by a majority that this is the right decision."But the one man who could really give the most intimate appreciation of the situation is the one man who has disagreed with the committee's main decision. That, surely, should not be so.
For my last point, I would refer to the landlord's responsibilities If the Government intend, as they obviously do, to place the management and the responsibility of management upon the shoulders of the landowner, then it is only right and fair to the owner that that responsibility should be on his shoulders and not on the shoulders of the committee. If these various powers are taken by the committee to alter the character of a holding, regardless of whether that holding or estate is under supervision or not, then the responsibility is taken away from the landowner, and that, surely, must weaken the whole principle of placing the landowners' responsibility squarely on his shoulders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) said, if the landowner is failing in his responsibilities, under another part of the Bill he can be dispossessed. That is the right solution, but to use directions of this nature, whether that owner is acknowledged a good one or whether he is acknowledged a bad one, is, in my contention, a thoroughly wrong way of doing what the Minister sets out himself to do—to see that the land is properly managed. I consider that the Minister, in resisting this Amendment, is, in fact, weakening the responsibilities of one of the partners in the industry, and for that reason I shall oppose the rejection of this Amendment.

Mr. T. Williams: Not to be charged with discourtesy, I thought I might, in just one or two moments, reply to the statements which have been made. Two things have emerged from this Debate The first is a very clear one—that there is a distinct cleavage of opinion between the two sides of the House on this matter Hon Members opposite will retain their views to the bitter end. I suspect that my hon Friends will do ditto. The other thing which emerged was, the length to which hon. Members stretched their imaginations to try to make out a case against disagreement with this Amendment. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) suggested that the tendency these days was not to leave county executive committees to do the job as practical persons associated with the industry—landowners, farmers and and workers, and some professionals—but that the tendency is to move towards the centre. Surely, the hon. Member for Newbury must know that the very opposite

is the case. Throughout the war the Minister appointed every member of the county executive committees without consulting anybody. Under the terms of the Bill the Minister must appoint two members from the panel of the Central Landowners' Association, three members from the panel of the National Farmers' Union, and two members from the panel of the Agricultural Workers' Unions. Therefore, there is no centralisation under this Bill, such as there was during the course of the war. So why the hon. Member should make that point I do not know.

Mr. Hurd: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman why? Because under this Bill, for the first time, the committees are to be denied the opportunity of appointing their own officers. They are to be appointed from Whitehall.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member is now switching from the argument he used to another argument which has no relation at all to the procedure of the county executives under this Bill. If he had looked at the Order Paper he would have found further down an Amendment, which I propose to accept, which was put down in the name of the Government in another place to make it impossible for the Minister to appoint a paid officer to receive representations from any, either farmers or landowners. Therefore, the hon. Member's argument completely falls, and there can be no basis for it. It is just about as strong as his next argument, in which he introduced the possibility of somebody giving a direction to provide a grain dryer at a cost of about £4,000. Consider a farm of 100 acres with a rent of 25s. per acre—an annual rent, therefore, of £125. If a direction is given to the landowner which is going to cost him one years' income, £125, he can go to an agricultural appeal tribunal—for £125, not for £4,000. That is why I suggest hon. Members have been stretching their imaginations.
Hon. Members referred also to somebody generating enthusiasm for piggeries. How many piggeries can be produced for £125? In all these cases the landowner would have access to the Agricultural Appeal Tribunal and I would ask hon. Members to remember that the tribunal consists of at least one farmer and one landowner and therefore, without detaining the House any longer——

Mr. Frank Byers: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that it is impossible to change the character of a farm for £125?

Mr. Williams: I said nothing of the kind. If it is a wholly grass farm and the tenancy was agreed in the depressed years and it was a farm ranched and not farmed, and direction was given to plough up one field it would be changing the character of the holding. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, hon. Members submit their own arguments, and I am at least entitled to my own view. If it is an all grass farm, and I repeat, one which is ranched and not farmed, it is not good husbandry or good farming, and it is not in the national interest not to serve that direction. To accept this Amendment amounts to depriving county executive committees of power to give a direction in that case. Since hon. Members on both sides of the House have made up their minds on this matter, I hope we can proceed to a Division, since it is the wish that we express our views in that way.

Mr. Charles Williams: I rise to say that I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply. The right hon. gentleman has spoken of the £125 and surely, if one takes the case of a smallish farm the Minister wants to force this clash of opinion for a small thing such' as that. We are told that the definition under this Amendment is that there is a complete altering of a farm if it is only a small matter of ploughing up one field. Surely that is not worth setting up difficulties and having divisions right at the beginning of what may be a comparatively easy evening. The Minister has spoken with the charming manner of a Celt. He has tried to make out that this is a little thing which, in any case, would not be operative. He has said he has no power with the executive committees, and far less power than he used to have, but there are many things by which one can exert great power over the agricultural community today. Perhaps one is proposing to leave that farm under the ownership of a co-operative society, and they have some very bad farms indeed.

Division No. 355.]
AYES.
[10.39 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith. South)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Alpass, J. H.
Attewell, H. C.

One may be leaving it under such ownership, or one may leave it with a different type of owner——

Mr. Nally: Mr. Nally rose——

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt I will certainly give way.

Mr. Nally: Do all the points the hon. Gentleman has made about farms apply to the Odiums farms of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson).

Mr. C. Williams: I have not knowledge of the conduct of every farm in this country. I think that is fairly obvious. Up to the present I have only made reference to certain farms, and there has been reference to one lot of landlords. I am interested in another lot of landlords—the co-operative societies. Let me go on from there. I believe quite frankly that the real reason why the Minister wants this is because it does give him a certain power. There is a danger of going around and panicking about, of giving various orders to the committees on the pretext of what they call the interests of the nation. All these things might easily happen at any time. For that reason we realise that the Minister might have accepted this position if he really meant what he said in his speech and if the Under-Secretary meant what he said. We know that is not the reason. The real reason is that they wish to force a hardship in the way of unnecessary capital development upon owners, bit by bit, year by year, and completely alter the whole character of a farm. They want to do it in an under-hand way such as this if it suits them in a particular emergency-For that reason, realising very clearly, as I have said, that we may have the Government in a panic I hope we shall vote against the Motion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put,
That the Question be now put.

The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 113.

Austin, H. Lewis
Haworth, J
Ranger, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Rankin, J.


Ayles, W. H.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Herbison, Miss M.
Reeves, J.


Balfour, A.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Reid T. (Swindon)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Hobson, C. R.
Rhodes, H.


Barstow, P. G.
Holman, P.
Robens, A.


Barton, C.
House, G.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Battley, J. R.
Hoy, J.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Belcher, J. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Royle, C.


Bing, G. H C.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Sargood, R.


Binns, J.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Scollan, T.


Blackburn, A. R.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Irving, W. J.
Sharp, Granville


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Jay, D. P. T.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Shurmer, P.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Bramall, E. A.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Simmons, C. J.


Brook, O. (Halifax)
Keenan, W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
King, E. M
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Buchanan, G.
Kinley, J.
Skinnard, F. W.


Burden, T. W.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Burke, W. A.
Lavers, S.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Champion, A. J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Snow, Capt, J. W.


Coldrick, W.
Leonard, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collick, P.
Levy, B. W.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Collindridge, F.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sparks, J. A.


Collins, V. J.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Stamford, W.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Lindgren, G. S.
Stephen, C.


Cook, T. F
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Strachey, J.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W)
Longden, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lyne, A. W.
Stross, Dr. B.


Cove, W. G.
McAdam, W.
Stubbs, A. E.


Crawley, A.
McAllister, G.
Swingler, S.


Crossman, R. H. S.
McEntee, V. La T.
Symonds, A. L.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Deer, G.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Diamond, J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Dobbie, W.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Dodds, N. N.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Driberg, T. E. N.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Tiffany, S.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mathers, G.
Titterington, M. F


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mayhew, C. P.
Tolley, L.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Medland, H. M.
Tomlinsdn, Rt. Hon. G.


Dye, S.
Mellish, R. J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Viant, S. P,


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mikardo, Ian
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mitchison, G. R
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Monslow, W
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Ewart, R.
Moody, A. S.
Weitzman, D,


Fairhurst, F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wells, P L. (Faversham)


Farthing, W. J.
Morley, R.
Wells, W. T (Walsall)


Fernyhough, E.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
West, D G.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington. E.)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Follick, M.
Mort, D. L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Foot, M. M.
Moyle, A.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Forman, J. C.
Nally, W.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wilkes, L.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Gibbins, J
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P J. (Derby)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Gibson, C. W.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Gilzean, A.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Orbach, M.
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Goodrich, H E.
Paget, R. T.
Willis, E


Gordon.-Walker, P. C.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wilson, J. H


Greenwood, A. W J. (Heywood)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wise, Major F. J


Grenfell, D. R.
Parkin, B. T.
Woodburn, A


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Woodburn, A


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Pearson, A.
Woods, G. S


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Piratin, P
Wystt W.


Gunter, R. J.
Plaits-Mills, J. F. F.
Yates, V. F


Guy, W. H.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hale, Leslie
Porter, E (Warrington)
Younger, Hon. Kennett


Hall, W G.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Zilliacus, K


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Price, M. Philips



Hardman, D. R.
Pritt, D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hardy, E. A.
Proctor, W. T.
Mr. Michael Stewart and


Harrison, J.
Purity, Cmdr. H
Mr. Popplewell.

NOES.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Grimston, R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Beamish, Maj. T. V H
Hare, Hon. I. H. (Woodbridge)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Beechman, N. A
Head, Brig. A. H.
Pitman, I. J.


Bennett, Sir P.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt Hon. Sir C.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Birch, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Raikes, H. V.


Boles, Lt.-Col. O. C. (Wells)
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Ramsay, Major S


Bossom, A. C.
Hope, Lord J.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bowen, R.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hurd, A.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S C. (Hillhead)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Jarvis, Sir G
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Sanderson, Sir F


Butler, Rt Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ldn)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L- W.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Byers, Frank
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Challen, C.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Spearman, A. C M.


Channon, H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon J. (Moray)


Cole, T. L.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Sutcliffe, H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E
Lipson, D. L.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Crowder, Capt. John E
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Teeling, William


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Low, Brig. A R. W.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thorneycroft, G. E (Monmouth)


Digby, S. W
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Touche, G. C.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R-
Vane, W. M. F.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Miclay, Hon. J. S.
Wadsworth, G.


Drayson, G. B
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Walker-Smith, D.


Drewe, C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Maude, J. C.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Mellor, Sir J
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Molson, A. H. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
York, C


Gammans, L. D.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.



George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Nicholson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Commander Agnew and


Gridley, Sir A.
Noble, Comdr A. H. P.
Major Conant.

Question put accordingly, "House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

That this The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 113.

Division No. 356.]
AYES.
[10.49 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Collins, V. J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Colman, Miss G. M
Goodrich, H E


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Cook, T. F
Gordon,-Walker, P. C


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Corlett, Dr. J
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Alpass, J. H.
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, D. R.


Anderson A (Motherwell)
Crawley, A
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Anderson, F (Whitehaven)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Attewell, H. C
Davies, Edward (Burstem)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden


Austin, H. Lewis
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Gunter, R. J


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Guy, W. H


Ayles, W H.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hale, Leslie.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Deer, G.
Hall, W. G.


Balfour, A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Barnes, Rt Hon. A. J.
Diamond, J.
Hardman, D. R


Barstow, P. G.
Dobbie, W.
Hardy, E. A.


Barton, C.
Dodds, N. N.
Harrison, J


Becherve, A. E.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Haworth, J.


Belcher, J. W.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Bing, G. H. C
Dumpleton, C. W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Binns, J.
Durbin, E. F. M
Herbison, Miss M.


Blackburn, A. H
Dye, S.
Hewitson, Capt. M


Blenkinsop, A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hobson, C. R


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Holman, P.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
House, G.


Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Hoy, J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Ewart, R.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Fairhurst, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bramall, E. A.
Farthing, W. J.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W)


Brook, D (Halifax)
Fernyhough, E.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Buchanan, G
Follick, M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Burden, T. W
Foot, M. M.
Irving, W. J.


Burke, W A
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Jay, D. P. T.


Champion, A. J
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Coldrick, W
Gibbins, J.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)


Collick, P.
Gibson, C. W
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Collindridge, F.
Gilzean, A
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Orbach, M.
Stross, Dr. B


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Paget, R. T.
Stubbs, A. E.


Keenan, W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Swingler, S


Kenyon, C
Palmer, A. M. F.
Symonds, A. L.


King, E. M
Pargiter, G. A.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Kinley, J.
Parkin, B. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Kirby, B. V.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Lavers, S.
Pearson, A.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Piratin, P
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Leonard, W.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)


Levy, B. W.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Lewis, J. (Botton)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Thurtle, Ernest


Lindgren, G. S.
Price, M. Philips
Tiffany, S.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Pritt, D. N.
Titterington, M. F.


Longden, F.
Proctor, W. T.
Tolley, L.


Lyne, A. W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


McAdam, W.
Ranger, J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


McAllister, G.
Rankin, J
Viant, S. P.


McEntee, V. La T.
Rees-Williams. J. R
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


McGhee, H. G.
Reeves, J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Rhodes, H.
Weitzman. D


McLeavy, F.
Robens, A.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wells, W. T (Walsall)


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Rogers, G. H. R.
West, D. G.


Mallalieu, J. P W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Royle, C.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Sargood, R.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Scollan, T.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Mathers, G.
Scott-Elliot, W
Wilkes, L.


Mayhew, C. P.
Shackleton, E A A.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Medland, H. M
Sharp, Granville
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Mellish, R. J.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Middleton, Mrs. L
Shurmer, P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Mitchison, G. R
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Willis, E.


Monslow, W
Simmons, C. J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Moody, A. S.
Skeffington, A. M.
Wilson, J. H.


Morgan, Dr H B.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. G
Wise, Major F. J


Morley, R.
Skinnard, F. W.
Woodburn, A


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Woods, G. S


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Smith, S. H (Hull, S. W.)
Wyatt W.


Mort, D. L.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Yates, V. F


Moyle, A.
Sorensen, R W
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Nally, W.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Sparks, J. A
Zilliacus K.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Stamford, W



Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Stephen, C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Strachey, S
Mr. Michael Stewart and


Oliver, G. H.
Strauss, G R. (Lambeth, N.)
Mr. Popplewell.




NOES.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O


Beamish, Maj. T V H
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R


Beechman, N. A
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P M
Maclay, Hon. J. S


Bennett Sir P.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Birch, Nigel
Gammans, L. D.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Boles, Lt.-Col D. C (Wells)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Marples, A. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Bowen, R.
Gridley, Sir A.
Maude, J. C.


Bower, N.
Grimston, R. V
Mellor, Sir J


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Molson, A. H. E.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Butler, Rt Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Molt-Radclyffe, Maj. C E.


Byers, Frank
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholson, G.


Challen, C.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Channon, H.
Hope, Lord J.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Hurd, A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Cole, T. L.
Jarvis, Sir J
Pitman, I. J


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Jeffreys. General Sir G.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Raikes, H. V.


Crowder, Capt. John E
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Ramsay, Major S.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lancaster, Col. C G.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Digby, S. W.
Law, Rt. Hon R. K
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Lindsay, M (Solihull)
Sanderson. Sir F


Drayson, G. B.
Lipson, D. L.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Eden, Rt. Hon A
Low, Brig. A R. W.
Spearman, A C M

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Touche, G. C.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Vane, W. M. F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Wadsworth, G.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sutcliffe, H.
Walker-Smith, D.
York, C.


Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'dd't'n, S.)
Ward, Hon. G. R.



Teeling, William
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.


Thorneycroft, G. E P (Monmouth)
Williams, C. (Torquay)

CLAUSE 15.—(Supplementary provisions as to directions.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 4, leave out from "to" to "by" in line 5 and insert:
the provision thereof by the conversion of existing fixed equipment and the improvement thereof.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It was always intended that the provision of fixed equipment should cover conversion, and this Amendment makes it clear that that is so.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 23, at end insert:
or in any case in which either an authority or person has at the time when the notice is given power without further authorisation to acquire compulsorily the land to which the notice relates or at that time that land is designated by a development plan under the enactments relating to town and country planning as subject to compulsory acquisition, or designated by an order under section one of the New Towns Act, 1946.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a concession made to the Opposition with which, I am sure, Members opposite will readily agree, namely that, where land is subject to a compulsory acquisition order or where it may be designated as such after inquiry; and we give directions to any landowner in any such area, he will have the right of appeal to the Tribunal.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 16.—(Dispossession on grounds of bad estate management.)

Lords Amendment In line 11, at end insert:
together with such particulars as appear to the Minister requisite for informing him of the general grounds on which the Minister is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is merely compelling the Minister when deciding to proceed with dispossession to provide the owner with the general grounds on which he is satisfied that no satisfactory improvement has been shown.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 17.—(Dispossession on grounds of bad husbandry.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 43, leave from "made" to "from" and insert:
until not less than twelve months has expired.

Mr. Collick: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is to make it clear that the period in which the farmer must be under supervision before dispossession action can be taken must be a minimum period of 12 months.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 22.—(Compensation to tenant for improvements, etc.)

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 10, after "may" insert:
after consultation with such bodies of persons as appear to him to represent the interests of landlords and tenants of holdings.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It was always intended that the Minister should consult with the various representative organisations in such cases. This Amendment gives effect to that desire.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Consent of landlord or approval of Minister required for long-term improvements.)

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 22, after "Minister" insert:
give notice to the landlord that he proposes to.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Where under Part II of the Third Schedule the tenant farmer desires to carry out an improvement for which the landlord refuses consent, under this Bill the Minister has the right to give consent if it is felt that the improvement would be definitely an improvement for the farmer. Therefore, if the Minister approves of a tenant's suggestion that the improvement ought to be carried out and the work is carried out by the tenant, he would qualify for compensation on quitting the farm. The Minister is empowered under the terms of the Bill to fix the proper compensation in any such case. The purpose of this Amendment—there are two Amendments running together—would be to allow the landowner to have the right of appeal to the Agricultural Tribunal if the Minister gave his consent. I suggest that this Amendment is absolutely unreasonable. After all if the tenant asks for and secures the Minister's consent to carry out an improvement, he carries out the improvement at his own expense and his compensation on quitting the farm is definitely limited to what the Minister regards as appropriate. Therefore, if the improvement of the land is of any value to the land itself, it would mean that there would be an increase of rent paid from the date of the quitting of the old tenant.
If, for instance, as has been suggested in another place, and as was suggested in Committee of this House, a tenant spent more on the improvements than the improvement was really worth, then it would be the tenant who would lose all his money and not the landlord. Therefore, there is no possibility of penalising the landlord if these Amendments are not inserted in the Bill. I hope, therefore, from the point of view of the national interest, where tenants are willing to undertake improvements that the landlord himself cannot or will not carry out, we ought to allow these tenants to carry out these improvements in the interests of more efficient and better farming. I am quite sure this is not a case where a landlord refusing consent for the improvement to be carried out should then have the right of appeal to the tribunal. I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House, in the interests of good husbandry, good

farming, and high food production, will agree with me when I say we should disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am sorry to have to intervene again because the Amendment carries on a debate we had on a previous Amendment upon which we divided. Although the Minister says that the Amendment is unreasonable, we feel that there is a point of considerable substance in it, because under Part II of the Third Schedule there is no doubt at all that certain of the improvements mentioned in Part II of that Schedule could very drastically alter the whole character of the holding.
All we ask in this Amendment is that there should be in these circumstances an appeal to the Agricultural Tribunal, and we are very sorry that the Government are unable to agree to the Lords Amendment because we are of the opinion that when the tenant is given permission under Part II we ought to do our best to try to safeguard his interests. We are not only thinking of the landlord in this matter, but of the sitting tenant, the tenant who follows him and the succeeding tenant. In our Debate a short time ago the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) taked about grass dryers. It is impossible under this particular schedule to authorise the erection of a grass dryer. But it is possible to erect a building to contain a grass dryer, and that is the point. Suppose authorisation was given by the Minister for a building containing a grass dryer, which is at the moment a very fashionable instrument. In ten years there might be a new system adopted for the drying of grass, and I certainly believe that the whole process by then will be much cheaper. Then the landlord or the tenant or the succeeding tenant, one or another, or the whole three, will be likely to suffer loss by this particular method at this particular time, and for that reason we disagree with the refusal of the Government to accept the Lords Amendment.
There is a new point which has not yet been considered either by this House during the passage of the Bill, or by another place. At the present time capital and materials are very badly needed, and are in very short supply, and in the national interest and in the interest of the agricultural industry it is important—and I am certain the Minister will agree


with this—to ensure that before a tenant is allowed to embark on capital expenditure, close consideration should be given to the possibility of capital, materials, and labour being wasted. If for no other reason than that, we believe that an appeal to the Agricultural Tribunal would be justified, and we oppose the Government in refusing agreement to this Amendment.

Mr. Baldwin: I would like to call attention to one particular item which may adversely affect the farmer. If a tenant does a so-called improvement and it is of little value, the tenant will suffer. But there is one matter—the removal of permanent fences—which may cost the tenant a good deal of money, and which may be looked on at the end of the tenancy as of no value to the farm. But what is the position of the landlord who may have to re-erect the permanent fences that have been removed? I think the Minister should consider that an appeal ought to lie against a tenant doing what may be not an improvement, but something harmful to the character of the farm.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I cannot understand the Minister suggesting that this is an absolutely unreasonable Amendment. It seems to me both well-reasoned and reasonable. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate the point. The tenant seeks to make improvements. He has a disagreement with his landlord whether or not these improvements shall be sanctioned. He appeals to the right hon. Gentleman, who sets himself up as a judge. But the right hon. Gentleman has to be guided, not as a judge should be guided, by the entirely impartial consideration of the facts and evidence put before him, but by the advice of the county agricultural committee through which, in all these matters, he is bound to be represented. He has put himself into a position in which, having appointed his agents in the area, he cannot but be guided by their advice. This is not a matter on which he should act otherwise than in a judicial capacity, and he will not be in a position to act in a judicial capacity.
11.15 p.m.
It is but reasonable that, it either party should so desire, they should in a matter in dispute have the right to go to an independent tribunal such as the Agricultural

Land Tribunal. I think that that argument is indefeasible. It is fair to say that the tenant's blood be on his own head if he goes to the expense involved. But the tenant is at liberty to give a year's notice to get out, to go away from the farm altogether, and then to demand and receive compensation from the landlord for the improvements he has effected.
In these circumstances, suppose that the tenant did in fact—after consultation with the local committee, perhaps—persuade the right hon. Gentleman that it was reasonable to go to considerable expense to effect improvements, and then found his judgment had been misplaced, and that he had misled the Minister into agreeing to sanction such improvements. He gives notice. What is going to happen? He applies for compensation. The landlord claims that what has been carried out has not, in fact, proved to be an improvement in the property; and the incoming tenant would not use the building, or whatever it might be, on which the money had been expended. Therefore, the landlord would not be able to gain any increased rent. So that matter goes to the tribunal for decision. The tribunal will have to decide who is to bear that loss: shall it be the landlord or shall it be the tenant? The tribunal is informed that the tenant has carried out that expenditure that the Minister sanctioned. It will then be quite impossible for any tribunal to mulct the tenant of the costs that have been incurred, and the result will be that the landlord, who retains what has been erected as a result of the expenditure of the money, will have to bear the cost. So I think that the least the Government can do is to accept the reasonableness of the right of the landlord or of the tenant, if he so desires, to exchange for the Minister's decision, whether or not an improvement shall be sanctioned, the decision of the agricultural tribunal. I hope that the Government will accept this Lords Amendment.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: A few minutes ago, on a very similar Amendment on Clause 14, we saw the Government take power, by supervision or direction order, to alter substantially the whole character of a holding, and then to divest themselves of all responsibility for the result. This Amendment is on very similar grounds, because some of the improvements


set out in Part II of the Third Schedule, to which the Amendment refers, may substantially alter the character of a holding. For instance, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) said, the erection of a building, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) pointed out, the pulling down of fences—both of these could, in fact—and this is the point I want to come to—not only alter the character of a holding but involve very serious financial liability for either the landlord, or any subsequent tenant who followed the tenant who demanded that those improvements should be made.
The Minister's objection to this is, that all these would be covered by the compensation Clauses. It is true that, theoretically, the position of the landlord and of a subsequent tenant might be covered by the compensation Clauses; but, in actual fact, it would be very difficult, probably, for any arbitrator to ignore completely a very substantial capital expenditure which had been incurred on the responsibility, first, of the Minister, and, secondly, of the sitting tenant, although the actual "baby" in the future would be carried by the landlord and by any subsequent tenant. It is not an entirely watertight argument to say that a landlord who went to arbitration could demand an increased rent for the holding, because whatever rent an arbitrator might fix, the landlord has still to find a tenant prepared to pay that rent, and a prospective tenant might well not be prepared to pay an economic rent for the altered character of the holding.
The last and most important point of all, perhaps, is one which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond also touched upon, and that is, the need to assess adequately and fairly whether or not the expenditure of capital and of materials was really justified. The Minister continually told us upstairs in Committee—and quite rightly—that the two factors most needed in agriculture today are, first of all, capital—which is available to a very considerable extent—and, secondly, materials, which are in very short supply, as he well knows. We believe that it is of the utmost importance, when an outlay of capital, and a considerable quantity of materials in short supply is involved, that the Land Tribunal should be the body to say whether or not such expenditure is

justified, and that, therefore, it is only right that there should be an appeal to that body. I hope the Minister will see the force of the argument.

Mr. R. A. Butler: May I put this point? The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the position of the landlord, who, he says, will not suffer any particular damage, but has the right hon. Gentleman given any consideration to the vital question of the relationship between landlord and tenant? It is on that point that I wish to say one word. It is better in the interests of the partnership which the Bill sets out to make, that a proper relationship should exist and if this particular device of the tribunal is adopted, that relationship would be closer. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this once more, for it really is a point of value.

Mr. Vane: The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that it is only necessary for him to say that this or that is in the interests of food production for everyone to follow him into the Division Lobby. If something is in the interests of food production, we will support him, but in this particular case there are practical considerations allied to estate management, which have to be looked into. It is not only a case of individual farms, but groups of farms and it is surely, best that the owner of property should have the last word in saying if the majority of the improvements in Part II of this Schedule ought, or ought not, to be carried out. That is a practical point of estate management and one which ought not to be swept aside. Lastly, might I remind the Minister that if Part II of this Schedule had been better drafted and had not been such a hotch-potch, it might have been that we could have agreed with him as to one part, and he could have agreed with us as to the other, and he would have avoided this difficulty. But he has brought all this trouble by not listening to us on this side from time to time.

Colonel Clarke: Part II of the Third Schedule is very wide and would include works in the nature of irrigation, such as the making of water meadows, and flowlands, and work of that sort which has to be kept up and which, is not kept up, becomes a considerable burden and in changing the


nature of the holding in that way one may do a great deal of harm. There should, therefore, be the opportunity for appeal. The whole question of changing the character of holdings was dealt with too lightly in my opinion by the Parlia-mentry Secretary when he spoke of changing from grass to arable, or from arable to grass. One has also to remember the effects on the human element. Quite different types of workers are required for different types of farm work. Furthermore, a tenant may be chosen for a particular farm probably because he is suited for that type of farm and the landlord and his agent have agreed that that is the best farm for him to have. There is something else, although it is something which the right hon. Gentleman has probably completely forgotten, that is, the historical side of this matter. Most of the farms in this country are arable or grass because for centuries it has been proven that one or the other is the better, and I would ask who is the best able to judge? Only the estate office or the landlord, or his agent, can give an opinion on this matter. County executive committees cannot know the history of all farms in this county. When it is proposed to change the character of a farm there should be opportunity for appeal. This Amendment should, I think, be accepted and not turned down.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not want to appear to be lacking in courtesy to hon. Members. I am quite sure that the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) was speaking to the wrong Amendment. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), however, asked me whether in dealing with this Clause we had borne in mind the

Division No. 357.]
AYES.
[11.28 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Belcher, J. W.
Coldrick, W.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Bing, G. H. C
Collick, P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Binns, J.
Collindridge, F.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Blackburn, A. R.
Collins, V. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blenkinsop, A.
Colman, Miss G. M.


Alpass, J. H.
Blyton, W. R.
Cook, T. F


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl Exch'ge)
Corlett, Dr. J.


Attewell, H. C.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Cove, W. G.


Austin, H. Lewis
Bramall, E. A.
Oavies, Clement (Montgomery)


Awbery, S. S.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Ayles, W. H.
Brown, George (Belper)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Brown, T J. (Ince)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Buchanan, G.
Deer, G.


Barstow, P. G.
Burke, W A
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Barton, C
Byers, Frank
Diamond, J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Champion, A. J.
Dobbie, W.

relationship between landlord and tenant. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have not only borne that in mind, but that we have gone to an enormous amount of trouble with the two sides of the industry to try to get the maximum measure of agreement throughout the building up of this Bill. Whatever differences have been expressed, whether in Committee or on Report, we have consulted one side or another or both. Hon Members who have looked at Clause 24 will have seen that many of the contingencies that have been suggested by hon. Members are never likely to arise. The hon. and learned Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) advanced a curious case to the House. He suggested that county executive committees made up of landlords and farmers chiefly are not quite the right body of people to decide whether improvements on farms should be carried out or not, but that a tribunal consisting of a legal chairman, with just one landlord and one farmer is the right body to determine whether an improvement should be made or not. It is a curious suggestion for the hon. Member to make.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: What I have said is that the Minister is not the right person to decide.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, the hon. Member insisted on suggesting that, although he knows that power given to me under the Bill is delegated to county executive committees. He knows that better than most hon. Members in the House.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 100.

Dodds, N. N.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Shackleton, E A. A.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Sharp, Granville


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lindgren, G. S.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Durbin, E. F. M
Longden, F.
Shurmer, P.


Dye, S.
Lyne, A. W
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.
McAdam, W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
McAllister, G.
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McGhee, H G
Skeffington, A. M


Fairhurst, F.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Farthing W. J.
Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, F.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Fool, M. M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Sparks, J. A.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Stamford, W.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mathers, G
Stephen, C.


Gibbins, J.
Mayhew, C P.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Gibson, C. W.
Medland, H M.
Stross, Dr. B.


Gilzean, A.
Mellish, R. J.
Stubbs, A. E.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Swingler. S.


Gordon -Walker, P. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Symonds, A. L.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mitchison, G. R
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Monslow, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morley, R.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Gunter, R. J.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H (Sheffield, C.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Guy, W. H.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thorneyeroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hale, Leslie
Moyle, A.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hall, W. G.
Nally, W
Tiffany, S.


Hardman, D. R.
Nichol, Mrs. M E (Bradford, N.)
Titterington, M. F.


Hardy, E. A.
Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)
Tolley, L.


Harrison, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Wadsworth, G.


Haworth, J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Oliver, G. H.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Orbach, M.
Webb, M, (Bradford, C.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Paget, R. T.
Weitzman, D.


Hewitson, Capt. M
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hobson, C. R
Palmer, A. M. F
Wells, W T. (Walsall)


Holman, P.
Pargiter, G. A
West, D. G.


House, G.
Parkin, B. T.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hoy, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pearson, A.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Piratin, P.
Wilkes, L.


Hughes, H D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Irving, W. J.
Price, M. Philips
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Jay, D. P. T.
Pritt, D. N.
Willis, E.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Proctor, W. T.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Wilson, J. H.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Ranger, J.
Wise, Major F. J.


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Rankin, J.
Woodburn, A


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Reid T. (Swindon)
Woods, G. S.


Keenan, W
Rhodes, H.
Wyatt, W.


Kenyon, C.
Robens, A.
Yates, V. F.


King, E. M
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Kinley, J,
Rogers, G. H. R.
Zilliacus, K.


Lavers, S.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)



Lee, F. (Hulme)
Royle, C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Leonard, W.
Sargood, R
Mr. Michael Stewart and


Levy, B. W.
Scollan, T.
Mr. Hannan.




NOES.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crowder, Capt. John E.
Head, Brig. A. H.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Darling, Sir W. Y.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Beeechman, N. A.
Digby, S. W.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bennett, Sir P.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Hogg, Hon. Q.


Birch, Nigel
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Hope, Lord J.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)
Drayson, G. B.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J


Bossom, A. C.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hurd, A.


Bower, N.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Jarvis, Sir J


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Jeffreys, General Sir G.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W.


Butler, Rt Hon R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham


Challen, C.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Lambert, Hon. G.


Channon, H.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Lancaster, Col. C. G


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Gridley, Sir A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Cole, T. L.
Grimston, R. V.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Pitman, I. J.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Touche, G. C.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Raikes, H. V.
Vane, W. M. F.


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Ramsay, Major S.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Maude, J. C.
Sanderson, Sir F.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Mellor, Sir J.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Molson, A. H. E.
Spearman, A. C M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
York, C.


Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)



Nicholson, G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Nield, B. (Chester)
Sutcliffe, H.
Mr. Drewe and


Noble, Gomdr. A. H. P
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Commander Agnew.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Teeling, William

CLAUSE 31.—(Restrictions on termination by notice of tenancies of holdings.)

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 7, after "farming" insert:
whether as respects good estate management or good husbandry or otherwise.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
There are three further Amendments on the Order Paper which should be taken with this one, and they are:
In page 32, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert:
(c) where the tenancy was created after the passing of this Act, that the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy for a purpose, specified in the contract of tenancy, for which the interest of the landlord was held immediately before the creation of the tenancy, and that.
In line 17, at end, insert:
(d) where the tenancy was created before the passing of this Act and the same person was landlord at the passing thereof as at the time when the notice to quit was given or, if the application for the Minister's consent is made before giving the notice to quit, at the time of the application, that greater hardship would be caused by the Minister's withholding than by his granting his consent to the operation of the notice; or.
Leave out lines 22 to 26.
These Amendments deal with an existing owner who prior to the passing of this Bill bought land subject to a tenancy. Under the Bill as it now stands, a person in that category could not come within the provision of paragraph (c) because he did not actually create the tenancy. That, of course, would be unfair to him. One of these Amendments makes this very clear. He would have to prove, first of all, his intention; and, secondly, greater hardship before he could secure the Minister's consent to the notice to quit. This is purely transitional in character. In any other case the owner can only give notice to quit and obtain the Minister's

consent if he has made his intention clear in the written contract of tenancy. If he has done so he can give notice to quit and apply for the Minister's consent under paragraph (c) on the ground of hardship. What we have aimed at is the maximum security of tenure with the minimum amount of hardship. I think these four Amendments combined fulfil those intentions.

Mr. Alpass: I wish to express my deep regret that the Minister has seen fit to suggest that we should agree with the Lords in this Amendment, especially with respect to line 7 and the words which follow. I regard this part of the Bill as most vital in connection with the industry because it affects the question of security of tenure. The purpose of the Bill, we have been told, is to secure a stable and efficient agricultural industry and everyone will agree who has had experience that one of the essential factors in securing that desirable object is that the good farmer, so long as he is farming efficiently and properly, should not be unduly disturbed.
That principle was included by the Minister in the first draft of the Bill. I believe I shall not be divulging any secrets when I say this—that representations were made to the Minister from certain quarters that that principle of security of tenure as drafted originally was too rigid from the landowners' standpoint, and it was subsequently amended in the way that we have seen in the Bill. Some of us argued then that that was opening the door to make it possible for tenants to be disturbed for reasons quite apart from efficient farming and good cultivation. I want to suggest to the House that this pushes the door completely open.

Mr. T. Williams: No.

Mr. Alpass: That is a matter of opinion. You argue differently now: you used to


argue in this way before you were Minister.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, at what stage were you the Minister?

Mr. Alpass: I should have said that the right hon. Gentleman used to argue in that way. What, in effect, happens is that the tenant receives notice. I would say that this question of security of tenure is as necessary today as it has ever been in the history of the industry. I have been told that things like that do not occur today, that landowners are not of that character.
Let me tell the House that over the last two months I have had tenant farmers in my Division coming to me showing me copies of notices they have received from their landlords, which practically means that they have no security of tenure at all. Both of them to my knowledge are two of the best farmers in Gloucestershire. I have told them that when this great Agricultural Bill, this great charter for the industry, became law, then none of these things would happen and that they would be perfectly secure in their holdings. If this Amendment is accepted I shall have to tell them another story and that the Minister has conceded—[Interruption.] I speak with very deep feelings on this question because I have been a personal victim of want of security. I was dispossessed of my farm because my landlord died six weeks too soon and I received no compensation. Members opposite sometimes taunt us by laughing about these things, when they are being discussed in this House. I see some of them are laughing now; but it is no laughing matter to good tenants farming efficiently and well to receive notice from their landlords and be dispossessed.
11.45 p.m.
I want to argue this matter in a very serious fashion. It is suggested that something in addition to insufficient cultivation, or something that is inconsistent with good estate management, shall be a reason for the Minister validating notice to quit, by the words "or otherwise." I have heard it said many times that lawyers could drive a coach and four through nearly every Act of Parliament. I believe the hon. Member for Chichester

(Mr. Joynson-Hicks) would be competent to drive one through this Bill especially if these words remain and I can conceive of no other words than these two words "or otherwise" which are more vague or which are more likely to lead to litigation and perhaps, a case being taken to the courts and the House of Lords to decide on the interpretation of these two words "or otherwise."I want to suggest to the Minister that he should, if I may put it this way," stick to his guns,"and adhere to a principle which the Labour Party, to which I have belonged for many years, has always advocated in its agricultural policy.
There should be nothing to disturb a man who is farming his farm efficiently except when it is wanted for national purposes. This opens the door very widely and allows landlords to bring forward all sorts of reasons. It may be said that the man does not get on very well with his neighbours. I can conceive, as I have said in Committee, that if I happened to be a tenant on a certain estate I might be dispossessed although I might be one of the best farmers in the district. I suggest that to accept the words "or otherwise" is a departure from our principle and, to a large extent, nullifies- security of tenure and weakens the position of the good farmer. I hope the Minister will reconsider this and tell the Lords that we are not going to accept this in order to strengthen their position and weaken the position of their good tenants.

Mr. T. Williams: I am obliged to say to my hon. Friend that he completely misreads this Amendment. I know perhaps better than most hon. Members how keenly my hon. Friend feels about this particular question. I know he himself has suffered personally and a personal injury clings for a very long time. Therefore, if he engenders heat in any debate on security of tenure, or one or two other odd items which I could name, but will not, then I have every sympathy with him. But I am convinced that this Amendment does not, will not, and cannot, do what my hon. Friend suggests. In any case, at worst, this Bill is infinitely better, from the point of view of security of tenure, than any Bill ever introduced into this House. My hon. Friend, therefore, cannot go back to his constituents, farmers or anybody else, and


say that the Labour Party have gone back on their promises. No person can secure possession of a farm by turning out his tenant without first of all securing the consent of the Minister. That never was so in the past. If he secures the consent of the Minister the tenant then has the right to go to an appeal tribunal and to argue why possession should not be given to another tenant. That never happened in the past. Therefore, I submit that this Bill with these Amendments gives the tenant farmer a greater measure of security than he ever had in the history of landlord and tenant in this country and I suggest, therefore, that these Amendments that have been embodied in the Lords Amendments are consistent with what the House was informed of before the Bill left the Commons. I hope, therefore, with that explanation, that the House will feel disposed to accept the Amendments provided by the Lords.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 37.—(Liability for repair, maintenance and insurance of fixed equipment.)

Lords Amendment: In page 39, line 37, after "that" insert:
no such reference shall be made before the expiration of three years from the commencement of the tenancy and.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The explanation I shall give is very short, and very simple. Clause 35 allows arbitration at the end of three years on the question of rent by either party, and it is suggested that where a new tenancy is created at any time before the expiration of three years, if one or other of the two parties has tried to drive too hard a bargain on the question of maintenance and repair, one can go to arbitration on rent before the expiration of three years. The Amendment inserted in another place insists there can be no arbitration on rent within the period of three years.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) asked a short time ago whether we take into account the relationship between landlord and tenant. Here we have taken into account the relationship between

landlord and tenant, and we think the fact that either one of the two parties can go to arbitration on rent before the expiration of three years will compel both of them to be reasonable to the other party. Therefore, we feel that to accept this Amendment inserted in another place would rob the Clause of the very object which we had in view. For these reasons I hope the House will feel that it is right and proper that we should take away the power to either party to exploit the other, by leaving the power of arbitration there if need be. If the terms agreed on are reasonable and fair, neither party need fear having to go to arbitration. If they are unreasonable and not fair, they ought to go to arbitration. Therefore, in the interests of the good relationship between landlord and tenant, I hope the House will disagree with this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I hope the Minister will reconsider this, as I think he is going to make it extremely difficult for landlord and tenant to trust one another. All they need do is to draw up a lease, and then say, "It does not matter." The signature will mean absolutely nothing. A tenant does not go into the business of obtaining a farm with his eyes shut. He is not an infant. He goes into a lease pretty carefully. If he thinks the landlord has been a bit quick, there is no reason for him to take it. They are both absolutely free parties. On the other hand, if there is a tenant coming along and saying, "Oh, it does not matter; I'll sign anything because I can go straight to arbitration," that will not make for a spirit of co-operation between landlord and tenant. I think that is the kind of thing that will happen as a result of this Amendment not being agreed with. I think everyone wants to see the best relationship between the two sides. If there is the feeling that one cannot trust a fellow's signature, there will be an awful lot of trouble in the future, and I think that one will find growing up one or two very quick practices by sharp people on one side or the other. If that comes about, it will be because the Bill allows it. Then one will find coming into the industry men—either tenants or landlords—who will be the last sort of men one wants to have if that industry is to be properly run.
Therefore, I cannot see how we can have one type of Clause, for rent, and


another for equipment, improvement or maintenance, which appear together in the same lease. They are all in the one lease, and if one gets two separate judges, one will find that the thing will not work to plan.

Mr. Baldwin: May I ask the Minister for a slight explanation? He indicated a variation in rent, but surely in this Clause we are discussing only the liability for repairs and maintenance. Is that so?

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, the hon. Member is correct. I referred to rent when I ought to have referred to the maintenance and repair clauses in tenancy agreements.

Mr. Baldwin: If it had been for rent, we should have had no objections; but my hon. Friend's point was that a landlord and tenant may have entered into a contract in the tenancy of a farm, and the landlord may have got the tenant to agree that he would do the repairs, and the rent be put at a lower figure accordingly. It seems to me that what may happen now is that a tenant may enter into a contract with his landlord to do his repairs and get a farmer to lower the rent. Then he may turn to the landlord and appeal for arbitration on that repair clause. Then the onus of repair can be put on the landlord. It does seem unfair that liability for repair can be dealt with without the rent being considered at the same time.

Mr. Vane: I think the arguments the Minister used first are absolutely conclusive in favour of our case, and I do not see how he can go back on them when he apparently voiced them with such sincerity. He said he wanted repairs arbitration to go back to what it was when the Bill left this House, and when it coincided with the term "arbitration for rent." We have always asked that the repairs arbitration be put on the same basis as rent arbitration. Now it appears that another place have done that. The Minister put that argument to us a minute or two ago. Before the House comes to a decision, I hope he will think again, because he is really supporting the Amendment, which I am sure all Members will support if they understand the point at issue. I hope the Minister will also answer the question whether an arbitrator who is

considering varying the repair and maintenance clause in the agreement can at the same time vary the rent, because that is an important point we should clear up.

12 m.

Mr. G. Williams: One hon. Member has pointed out how unscrupulous a tenant could be under this Bill, but a landlord could be equally unscrupulous. He could promise all sorts of things to a tenant. He could promise to do repairs, and could a sign a contract accordingly; but immediately the contract was signed, he could go to arbitration. It is going to make all contracts a mockery if that is to be the case, and we think that there should be a period of three years first. After all, if the parties have signed a contract and have taken legal advice, they should be able to know what they are signing. If not, it will have a very unsettling effect on all contracts between landlord and tenant.

Mr. York: We seem to have got into rather difficult waters, and perhaps the first speech of the Minister is the cause. On a former Clause the Minister was in agreement with the principle that the rent should not be altered within three years of the commencement of the tenancy. Although he argued rather to the contrary a moment or two ago, he does agree that that is a legitimate point of view, and one that should remain in the Bill. On this Amendment the Minister argues—or rather, we think he means to argue—that there should not be a three-year period before the conditions upon which the rent is based are altered. That seems to me to be completely inconsequential. You cannot have it that, on the rent itself, there shall be a three-year period of grace, but on the conditions on which the rent is based there shall be no such period. You must, surely, be logical, and condition the whole of the rent negotiations on the same basis. If the Minister were to argue that he disagreed with the three-year period before an alteration could take place, then we could understand him arguing that this Amendment should be rejected, but this is not so.
A rent is fixed according to the general conditions contained in the tenancy agreement; that is to say, if a tenancy agreement happens to contain clauses making it obligatory on a tenant to repair cerlain


parts of the farm buildings—maybe to paint the Dutch barn roofs, or something like that—that particular expense of the tenant is taken into consideration when the rent is fixed. If that condition of repair, as it would be in this case, is altered by a reference to arbitration, it is obvious that the rent fixed for the farm must also be altered to correspond with the alteration in the terms of the tenancy. It is, therefore, apparent that alterations in the terms of a repair condition is a direct alteration in the terms of the rent. If that is the case—and I think everybody will agree it is—then surely the Minister ought to accept the conditions under which the rent is protected for a three-year period. I hope the Minister sees that there is an absolute and direct comparison between the two examples I have given. On the one hand, he accepts the principle, and on the other hand he rejects it. At least, he ought to make it plain how he reconciles his attitude on these two points.

Mr. T. Williams: I think the point is a very simple one. The statutory clause for maintenance and repair is available. Then there will be the yardstick of how far the terms of any agreement relating to maintenance and repair differ from the statutory maintenance and repair clause. There can be no similar yardstick for rent. Hence the difference between the terms of the two.

Mr. York: No. Even if there is an alteration, there must also be a similar alteration in the rent.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I am not at all convinced by the right hon. Gentleman's reply. I do not see how he can distinguish, or put into watertight compartments, rent on the one hand and repair and maintenance on the other, because the two obviously hang together, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) said. I should have thought it was essential that the wording in respect of repair and maintenance should closely follow upon the wording in respect of arbitration for rent, otherwise a wholly impossible position could arise. In the case of a repairing lease, which is a very common form of lease, we could have one of the signatories of the lease, the day after having put his name upon it, saying, "I did not know what I was

signing; these terms are rather harsher than I thought them yesterday,"and taking the whole thing to arbitration. It would be an absolutely impossible situation for the landlord or the tenant, as the case might be, if either agreed to play that sort of game. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, who, at all stages of the Bill, has argued in favour of the security of the tenant, should now use a similar argument in favour of the security of the contract.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am beginning to doubt whether hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are opposing the Motion that we should disagree with the Lords Amendment, have read the Clause or are conscious of the argument they are trying to put before us. It is quite clear that Clause 37, which gives the Minister power to make regulations, then provides that those regulations are to be deemed to be incorporated in a contract, except in so far as they impose on one of the parties to any agreement in writing, a liability which, under the agreement, is imposed on the other. Both the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) and the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) put before the House an argument that the tenant, or, for that matter, the landlord, may enter into a lease, undertaking a liability to repair, and then ask that that liability be transferred. No such case could possibly arise under this Clause, because this Clause merely gives the Minister power to make certain regulations, and then provides that those regulations shall be deemed to be contained in certain contracts, unless express liability has been undertaken in writing by one of the parties. So, if there has been an express undertaking to repair generally in the lease undertaken by the tenant, those regulations by the Minister do not arise. Therefore, it is completely irrelevant for hon. Members opposite to say that the rent is fixed for three years.

Mr. York: I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. Under Clause 35 there is a condition which makes it impossible for the landlord or the tenant to vary the rent of the holding. Unless there is a provision in the proviso to Clause 37 (2) to make the same three years apply, whether the tenancy agreement is in the model clause, or provided by the regulations, or in the tenancy agreement, the


landlord or tenant can take the tenancy agreement or model clause to arbitration.

Mr. Fletcher: This seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. If at any time after the passage of this Bill the Minister makes regulations prescribing the terms of maintenance repairs, insurance, fixed equipment, and if those regulations contain a conflict with anything contained in an existing lease, then it seems perfectly proper that either the landlord or the tenant should take that matter to arbitration immediately, without having to wait a period of three years.

Mr. C. Williams: I would like to have some explanation from the Front Bench opposite of what we have just heard, because it is contradictory of what the Minister himself has said. He has contradicted himself once, or even twice and I think he meant to accept this Amendment. I thought that in a very quiet voice he said he would accept it, but then when he spoke more loudly, I thought he proposed to reject it. I am not sure that in reality he might not think that his first words were the right ones. I am going to emphasise not so much what these repairs might mean to a landlord, but what is going to happen to a landlord who is not keeping his part of the lease and trying to get out of repairs under this Clause, as a tenant might do.
I think it can be said that throughout this country on the average—at least, in England and Wales, because I cannot speak about north of the Border—both tenant and landlord, if they make a bargain, honestly try to carry it out. It seems to me that, from everything the Minister has said, it is quite possible at any time under this Clause, unless one puts in this Amendment, that one could really have a very unsettled position with a bad tenant or, similarly, a bad landlord. It would seem that by rejecting this Amendment the Minister is doing precisely what an hon. Member behind him just now tended to quarrel with, and that is, causing a situation in which the bad man can take advantage of the good. That is what we want to prevent. Unless this is in the Bill, one is giving the landlord or the tenant the opportunity to take unfair advantage of the other. The Minister does not look very determined about this. He does not look as though he is going to

fight it to the last ditch; so, surely, it would be wise of him to say, "I will make this concession on this point; it is not a big point, and I will accept it." I am asking the Minister to do that entirely from the point of view of the tenant, because a tenant will be in a difficult position in some cases if this Amendment is not agreed to.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I approach this Amendment with an entirely open mind. I venture to think the Minister did not completely assimilate the whole substance of the argument. Let me put my case in this way. In the present state of transition, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is upsetting the financial market, all sorts of people are investing money in land, and as a result there is an entirely new type of landlord in the agricultural industry. Those persons are purely speculators. Times may change, even under a Socialist Government, and it may well be that that new speculative landlord will find himself without a tenant and will have difficulty in letting his farm. The type of person to whom I refer might well enter into an agreement whereby he would render himself responsible for many things which, under the standard clause which the Minister advocates in these agreements, the tenant would normally be liable. In those circumstances such a landlord might agree to a lower rental than would normally be accepted. Unless this Amendment is accepted, the landlord will then in a few months time, when the tenant has moved into that farm, when he has incurred the necessary and essential costs which that involves, and which are substantial, and when he has a natural disinclination to move out again or to give notice, have the right to go to arbitration in order to alter the onus which he has accepted in his agreement, and get that onus thrown on to the tenant, and, presumably, unless that is entirely unreasonable, to have the rent correspondingly increased. I am sure that the Minister does not intend that to happen, but it is a possible consequence of the position under this Bill.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The Minister mentioned a yardstick, and I would like to know if he really thinks that it is practicable over the whole of England and Wales to have a yardstick, when there


are so many different conditions all over the country.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, I believe it is quite possible on the standard matters affecting maintenance and repair, and since the expert committee would be responsible for suggesting the statutory clause, I have no doubt at all that once they are given that duty, they will be able to meet it.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 48.—(Acquisition by smallholdings authority of land for smallholdings.)

Lords Amendment: In page 45, line 31, at end, insert:
(4) Where a smallholdings authority have been authorised to acquire land for the purposes of smallholdings they shall not, except where in special circumstances it appears to them requisite so to do, exercise their powers of acquisition so as to require any person farming the land to give up his occupation of the land before such time as the authority are satisfied that the land is required, and can be adapted, for the purposes of smallholdings.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. C. Williams: I would like to ask the Minister two questions on this Amendment. I gather that the object of the Amendment is, for practical purposes, to prevent a local authority from taking over agricultural land until they are adequately and really prepared to develop it into smallholdings. The actual wording of the Amendment seems to make that point clear, but, on the other hand, it is not clear that they are the right people to decide whether they should
exercise their powers of acquisition so as to require any person farming the land to give up his occupation of the land before such time as the authority are satisfied that the land is required, and can be adapted, for the purposes of smallholdings.
What machinery has the Minister for seeing that the local authority really knows that it is adequately prepared to carry out the intention of the Amendment? It seems to me that he is putting on to the local authorities the power to do this, and that they are really judging their own case. I do not know whether there is any form of appeal to the agricultural committee, or anything of that kind; but it looks as if they are the only people to decide what this comparatively vague wording means, I think that we

ought to be very clear about this. I appeal to the Minister as an agriculturist, and with no desire whatever to hurt smallholdings of this type; but I do say that we ought to be very sure that the local authority will not use this power in an arbitrary way. I am not at all happy in my mind that they are really the people to do this. [Interruption.] I am glad to have the backing of hon. Members opposite, but I hope they will not carry it too far and have a really terrific attack on the Minister such as we heard just now. I am trying to ask a simple question. I hope the Minister will give me an answer in some detail.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not quite follow the hon. Member's submission This Amendment is clearly to give the smallholdings authority the right to leave the sitting tenant on the land until the smallholdings authority themselves are satisfied that they need the land for the purpose of carving it up for smallholdings That is the only object of this Amendment—simply to leave the smallholdings authority with power to purchase the land and to leave the sitting tenant there until the time when they think they can adapt it for smallholdings.

Mr. C. Williams: The basis of my question is whether the Minister is satisfied that the smallholdings authorities are the right people to make the decision.

Mr. T. Williams: Actually the smallholdings authorities are the only bodies who lay out smallholdings, so they must be the right bodies to make the decision.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 84.—(Acquisition of land by Minister to ensure full and efficient use thereof.)

Lords "Amendment: In page 69, line 21, after "land" insert "or any part thereof."

Motion made, and Question proposed: "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: It seems to me that this Amendment might cause a possible difficulty, and I should like to elaborate upon it for a moment. This Clause gives the Minister power to acquire substantial quantities of land, which, in his opinion, would not be otherwise adequately developed


except with the aid of the national resources. The Amendment gives him the right, if necessary, not to acquire the whole of that land, but only part of it. I want to ask how the owner of the land is protected as regards a lump of land which is unprofitable. It may be that the Minister will exercise that right, and the owner will be left with land which is absolutely valueless as a piece of property. Could the Minister reassure the House on that point?

Mr. T. Williams: I can assure the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) on this Amendment. It was moved by the Opposition in another place, and was accepted by the Government be-cause it was felt to be right and proper that the Government should not necessarily have to purchase the whole of any particular area of land which they had under review. I think it is a very reasonable Amendment for the noble Lords to suggest, and we readily accept it.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 97.—(Contributions towards cost of liming agricultural land.)

Lords Amendment: In page 81, line 41, at end insert "or to be incurred."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. C. Williams: This Clause deals with lime. I am not clear precisely as to the meaning of this Amendment and the following consequential Amendments. I think that possibly they deal with the running out of lime and the subsidy, an Order in connection with which we may expect in a short time—within a matter of a week or two. I rather think that these Amendments are being inserted for the purposes of protecting the subsidy. Perhaps we might have an explanation on that, and the Minister might also give us an assurance on that point. As far as I can understand these Amendments, they will ensure that there will be no gap in the granting of the lime subsidy. If that is so, I welcome these Amendments, but I think the Government ought to give us an explanation of them.

Mr. T. Williams: If the House allows this Bill to pass quickly to another place

and if we get the Royal Assent on Wednesday or Thursday next, we can fix the appointed day for the lime subsidy at once, and there will be no break in its grant. Therefore, we are anxious that the Bill should go to another place very quickly, so that we can fix the appointed day this week and there will be no interference with the subsidy. These Amendments will facilitate the administration of the lime subsidy, and will enable the subsidy for the lime to be paid, and also for transport and spreading at the same time. This will save the farmer making two applications for two subsidies for one amount of lime, which I am sure hon. Members would not desire to happen.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 82, line 2, leave out "the said Part I" and insert "Part I of that Act."

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

12.30 a.m.

Mr. C. Williams: The Amendment in line 2 is rather curious. It says "leave out" the said Part I and insert "Part I of that Act." I think there must be a misprint here. I think we should have the right reference in the right line.

Mr. T. Williams: The explanation is that this Amendment refers only to Part I of the Act of 1937 in connection with the land fertility and agricultural liming schemes.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE.98—(Prevention of damage by pests.)

Lords Amendment: In page 83, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(3) Section four of the Prevention of Damage by Rabbits Act, 1939 (which allows the use in rabbit holes of poisonous gas, and the placing in rabbit holes of substances generating poisonous gas by evaporation or in contact with moisture) shall apply to the use of such gas and the placing of such substances in any hole, burrow or earth for the purpose of killing animals to which this section applies.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. M. Philips Price: I would like to have an explanation from the Minister on this, because the Lords have deleted Subsection (3) of the original Bill which lays down provisions for the poisoning or destroying of rats. They are inserting another provision which has nothing to do with the poisoning of rats, and deals with the gassing of rabbits. The Minister, I am sure, will agree that the destruction of rats and mice, as well as rabbits, is extremely important for our food campaign. It is not, I submit, possible to deal with rats entirely by gas. There are recognised ways, and the pest officers of the agricultural committees have all the methods for assisting farmers, and contracts are now being made between farmers and county committees which make it possible to deal with the rat menace. I am disturbed at this Subsection being completely deleted by the Lords Amendment, because that will mean that it will not be possible to continue with mehods that are efficient. If the Minister will allay my fears, I shall be very glad, because I think a handicap will be imposed on the farming community if this proposal should go through.

Mr. T. Williams: I can reassure my hon. Friend at once. Rats and mice can still be disposed of under Section 8 of the 1911 Act. The effect of the Amendment is to allow the gassing of animals to which this Clause applies only in their holes or earths, instead of the use of poison in the open, as at present provided in the Bill. This is an asset. The noble Lords in another place have done a job which we would desire to be done.

Mr. Philips Price: May I assume that the 1911 Act makes this Clause of the original Bill unnecessary?

Mr. Williams: indicated assent.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 103.—(Schemes for provision of agricultural goods and services.)

Lords Amendment: In page 85, line 43, at end, insert:
(5) This section shall extend to Scotland, with the substitution for references to the Minister of references to the Secretary of State.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I observe that line 43, Subsection (5), says that:
this Section shall extend to Scotland with the substitution for references to the Minister of references to the Secretary of State.
So far as I can see, this is a very desirable Amendment which should apply to Scotland. I would like to have a short statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the Parliamentary Secretary, as to how it actually applies to Scotland.

Mr. C. Williams: I think I must support my hon. Friend. I think the Minister might explain these words.

Mr. T. Williams: Perhaps I can ease the hon. Member's mind. This Amendment is to extend the agricultural goods and services scheme to Scotland to cover the period between 31st December, 1947, when the present goods and services schemes under Section 25 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1940, runs out, and the passing of the Scottish Agricultural Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

SEVENTH SCHEDULE—(Minor and consequential Amendments.)

Lords Amendment: In page 101, line 41, at end, insert:
Where the operation of a notice to quit served under Subsection (2) of Section one hundred and forty of the Law of Property Act, 1925, by the owner of a severed part of the reversion depends on any proceedings under Section thirty-one of this Act, the period within which under the proviso to the said Subsection (2) the tenant may accept the notice as a notice to quit the entire holding shall run from the time at which it is determined that the notice has effect instead of from the time at which the notice is served.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move,"That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. C. Williams: This is rather a considerable Amendment. I wonder if the Minister would like to say a word or two in explanation. I am not asking him to change his mind or anything of that sort. I thought he had a brief, and was forgetting to read it out.

Mr. T. Williams: It is very generous of the hon. Member, first, to recognise that there are such things as briefs, and secondly, that there are people who read them out. It is not always a brief job to read out a brief in reply to a request.
A tenant must within a certain number of days decide, if given notice to quit part of his farm, whether he should regard that as notice to quit the whole of his farm. Since under Clause 31 a decision as to consent to the notice to quit may be deferred, it is only reasonable that the number of days in which he is permitted to decide whether the notice to quit refers to the whole or part of his farm should start from the time when he knows his fate under Clause 31, and whether he has to quit or not to quit.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [Several with Special Entries].

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill:—Mr. Alpass, Sir T. Dugdale, Mr. Dye, Mr. Hurd and Mr. T. Williams:—Three to be the Quorum—[Mr. T. Williams]—To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to:—To be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

Lords Amendment to Commons Amendment in lieu of one of the Lords Amendments and Lords Amendments in lieu of certain of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.

CLAUSE 5.—(The Executives.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 36, leave out from "be" to "but" in line 37, and insert "decided by the Commission".

The Lords did not insist on the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:

Page 7, line 37, after "Minister", insert "after consultation with the Commission".

12.45 a.m.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment", put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 39—(Certain road transport undertakings to be acquired by Commission.)

Lords Amendments:

In page 48, line 24, leave out "forty" and insert "eighty."

In page 48, line 27, leave out "twenty-five" and insert "fifty"; and in page 48, line 36, leave out "forty" and insert "eighty."

The Lords did not insist on the above Amendments but proposed the following Amendments in lieu thereof:

Page 48, line 23, leave out from "undertaking" to "in" in line 24;

Page 48, line 27, leave out "twenty-five" and insert "forty."

Page 48, line 36, leave out Subsection (3).

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendments."

These Amendments raise again the issue of the test to determine whether an undertaker is a long distance undertaking or not. We have had this matter debated through various stages of the Bill. These Amendments suggest a 40 miles radius test. I would point out that the Commission, if it is to undertake the responsibility imposed upon it under Clause 3, must have sufficient resources for that purpose. Therefore, I am unable on behalf of the Government to accept any Amendment that tends to whittle down its resources.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that we have had some discussion, if not on these Amendments, at any rate on similar Amendments which cover the same point. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the first time we attempted to discuss the matter in this House the discusscion was somewhat sharply truncated while I was myself speaking. So he must use the patience we know he possesses to hear these Amendments discussed at a little length tonight. I want to make it clear that tonight I am most anxious to discuss the Amendment in lieu, from the point of view of workability. I have already tried to put to the right hon. Gentleman the general arguments as to the equity of taking the test which he has chosen for deciding the question of ordinary long distance haulage. Although there are many and weighty arguments against the equity of the test, in general I do not propose to go over these tonight, but I do want to make clear what is the problem which is raised by the Amendment which has been sent from another place.
The first effect is to leave out the first limb of the right hon. Gentleman's test. He will appreciate that this is quite a different suggestion from that which was previously put forward. As I see it, the first effect is to leave out the first limb of the test, which is the carriage of goods by a person carrying on the undertaking for a distance of 40 miles or upwards, as the road winds, in one vehicle or a succession of vehicles. The third of these Amendments merely leave out the peculiarly difficult and groundless method of measurement. That test does not stand alone because it is interlocked with the second limb, which lays down that the 40 miles carriage must be in such circumstances that at one point it brings the vehicle outside a radius of 25 miles from its operating centre.
I would like the right hon. Gentleman to help us on this point, because I think it is extremely important. As I understand the present test that the Government propose, it means that if you are inside a radius of 25 miles, you can carry any particular goods as far as you like. The carriage limitation of 40 miles only applies if you go outside the radius of 25 miles. It follows from that—again I want to take the right hon. Gentleman

with me, if he would be so kind—that you can carry goods under the proposed test, and not come within the long distance limitation, 39.9 miles from your basis without being caught by the test. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for signifying his agreement. I want the House to consider what that means for both sides when they are trying to work out the test.
The Commission, before they attempt to acquire a road haulage business, have to form their opinion that it is a long distance haulage business. The other side, if the Commission form the opinion and proceed to apply, may have to prepare their case for the tribunal. That, as I understand it, means that both sides, when they have the records before them, have to go into what I submit is an entirely intolerable dissection, first, of all the journeys to see if the last five miles go over the radius or not, and secondly, of the goods carried, to see if one parcel of goods was hot carried over 40 miles. That seems to us to be an intolerable extra complication of the position, and we say that it would be simpler—although that would be difficult enough—to have one test whether a vehicle went outside the 40 miles radius.
Then you would be able to have certain clearly defined points to which the journey would have to be made. The worst that could happen, from the point of view of eliminating this part of the right hon. Gentleman's test, is that some journeys—and they are bound to be few, because you do not get points in the circle conveniently situated in every case—would be over 50 and under 80 miles. Some of the journeys would be counted as long distance journeys. At the moment the right hon. Gentleman is saying that journeys up to 40 miles would be counted as short distance journeys. I say, and I am trying not to cover the ground which I covered a few days ago, that that would, in taking the examples of which I spoke on the last occasion—the London area, the industrial area of England and especially I had in mind of course Liverpool and Manchester, or the industrial belt of Scotland—have an entirely good effect.
There are two arguments that have been used against this with which I would like to deal. The first is the argument of the right hon. Gentleman tonight that the Commission must have sufficient resources to carry out their duty under Clause 3.
The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to signify his agreement in the last discussion that any speculation, or any estimate of the numbers of vehicles in this connection, must be guesswork. But I think he will agree with me that, on the principle that he has adopted, and that everyone has adopted in approaching this problem, he reduces the mileage, increases the number of vehicles that are taken over, and decreases the number that are left. We have made a considerable reduction in the suggestions which I am now indicating to the House. We argued on the last occasion a distance of carry of 80 miles and a radius of 50 miles. We omit the distance of carry and take the radius of 40 miles, which is a very material fact in journeys. I agree, of course, that it will reduce the number taken over, and that is one reason why I am anxious that the House should agree with the Lords in the Amendment. It will reduce the numbers in what is a very modest estimate of long distance haulage, and that is the radius of 40 miles.
Another argument that has been advanced is, to go into mathematics and use the old familiar formula of Πr 2, and put it on a square miles radius. That argument, I think, the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary was the first to use—in the Committee stage. I should like to point out one fallacy in that argument which, I think, is clear—and, indeed, it must be apparent to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, because he has not advanced the argument, so far as I remember, at any stage—and that is, that when we take on the square miles basis, we are not dealing with an area in which the radius runs like lines on a map square of a military map: we are dealing with areas, especially in the rural areas, where we may have in each only one second-class road in a large part of the area, and in which the destination may be only a few farms.
Therefore, apart from the other arguments that have been advanced, and which I have tried not to repeat, we say that the present test is calculated to meet with the greatest possible difficulty of working out by both sides. After the arguments that we have heard from the learned Solicitor-General on the question of the onus of proof, it surely behoves the Government, first and foremost, to get the test in the simplest possible form. That

is our first argument. We say that the radius such as we suggest of 40 miles, leaving out the test of carry, would be a great simplification. Secondly, we say that 40 miles is, at any rate, getting near what can be justified in ordinary common parlance as ordinary long distance haulage. Thirdly, we say that, as far as the number of vehicles is concerned, the number that the right hon. Gentleman through the Commission is going to get—not only the long-distance road haulage vehicles, not only the short-distance vehicles that go with their businesses, but the railway vehicles and the vehicles of the railway owned road haulage companies, some 95 per cent. of which are engaged on either short distance work or exceptional traffics—is an amply sufficient number of vehicles.
We must urge again that this is a question of livelihood, that this is a question of destroying the work of the lives of the people whose businesses are taken over. Therefore, if we are going to put into the Act—as quite distinct from having it in our speeches—that what we seek to take over is ordinary long-distance haulage, then some effort ought to be made to get near the sense of the words we use. Secondly, there should be a test which will work. I hope, for these reasons, that the House will agree with this Amendment and put a commonsense aspect on the Bill.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Raikes: I rise to support my right hon. and learned Friend. I propose to deal with the question of radius. First and foremost I maintain that the 40 miles compared with the 25 miles is an advantage, working in with what we did in the days of the war. During the war, 60 miles was allowed, and 60 miles in distance, if worked out mathematically, is just under 40 miles in radius. If the Government accepted 37½ miles, which is the precise figure, no doubt there would be no trouble at all. But when the figure is 25 miles, as has already been pointed out. it will be impossible for hauliers to operate between Liverpool and Manchester and I do not think that anybody, whatever views he may have about the Bill as a whole, would say that that is long-distance haulage.
The same can be said of haulage between Glasgow and Edinburgh. In short, one is driven to see the futility of


this when one thinks that a haulier cannot operate in Greater London itself. That is not all. The position is even more fantastic in Scotland or North Wales where comparatively short distances in the generally understood sense are long when 25 miles is the figure concerned. One is not only injuring all comparatively short-distance hauliers, but also the trader and consumer alike, all of whom desire to continue the service which they have enjoyed in past times.
From reassurances which have been given by the Minister one gathers that his objection is on the basis that he will not have sufficient vehicles if the 25 mile limit is increased to 40. Assuming at its lowest that the Commission will have the 10,000 vehicles which is calculated they will get from the railway companies, and assuming on their lowest figures—the figures which have been given by the Government—that they will also have another 8,000, so they will, at any rate, have 18,000 instead of the 30,000 which they claim they will have under the operation of the 25 mile rule. Seriously, I would ask hon. Members whether it can be accepted that, incompetent though this Board may be, we are not driven almost to a condition of lunacy, if it is claimed that this Board cannot work with as many as 18,000 vehicles for dealing with long distance haulage. The Board can easily have a good many more. The Minister has power to increase the number of vehicles to almost any amount, and this 18,000 could be considerably increased. That being so, it seems to me complete folly to suggest that, if one has only 18,000 vehicles, this wonderful Commission cannot operate economically or usefully. I say so, remembering that this is quite apart from the fact that there can be many more vehicles which will probably be asked for at an early date. In fact, what it amounts to is that the right hon. Gentleman suggests that unless all competition above 25 miles can be utterly stifled, even this Board will be unable to act.
In conclusion I would say—and this is really the gist of the whole matter—that the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, by having the fantastically low figure of 25 miles, are, in point of fact, meaning, and deliberately meaning, in due course to kill not only long-distance

haulage but all haulage. This is what lies at the back of it, doing it in two bites at the cherry instead of one. If they do not intend to kill short-distance haulage, they could very easily have given the short-distance man a fair opportunity by accepting the Amendment, which does not really affect long-distance haulage at all but gives a reasonable opportunity to a large number of men to continue a useful service that they have rendered in the past.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I earnestly appeal to the Minister. This battle for transport has gone on for a long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] It has been fought with honest feeling, and the debates which have taken place in another place have been at the very highest level and have, if I may say so, shown a keen appreciation of the hardships which may be inflicted upon 60,000 men—small men at that. I am appealing to the Minister in a fully cooperative manner. Can he not realise that there are vast numbers of people who really represent the majority of people in this country, who do not want to see the small man driven out of business and who want to see some kind of co-operation from the Ministry, some kind of compromise?
Why does the Minister turn down this Amendment? The Lords have reduced the distance. They have done everything they can to compromise. They have reduced it to 40. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman come forward with a compromise, with 35 miles or something like that, and say, "We will meet you"? We had honestly felt on this side of the House that the Minister was really striking beyond long-distance haulage although he said he only wanted to take in long distance. We really felt that he was going to strike beyond. We are not on this side convinced that 25 miles represents the limit of the advance. What we feel is that he is doing this in order to take over a certain number of vehicles. I do not think that that is fair. It is not fair to say that the object of a Bill is to take over long-distance and then to take over these small fellows' vehicles. That should not be done. The Minister ought to be able to get what he wants with priorities and so on—new vehicles—and if he has only ten or fifteen thousand to start he will


get the rest in time. We feel that a great injustice will be done to the small man if the short distance vehicles are taken over, not an honourable thing in a Bill which is suppose to nationalize long distance haulage.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: If these Amendments are accepted, as I hope they will be, they will do something to assist in keeping the road haulier in the North of Scotland on the road. If they are thrown out, it will mean quite definitely that in that area road hauliers will go out of business. There is no question about that—and I do not think that any Scottish Member on the other side of the House would seek to contradict that statement—because the figures of 40 and 25 make the situation perfectly plain in that very widely scattered area. The Clause which this Amendment seeks to alter is entirely governed by the opinion of the Commission, and in that Commission Scotland has no effective voice whatever. Therefore, we are entirely dependent upon what the Minister, in his charity, is prepared to do for us in Scotland. He has heard these arguments before and listened to them with great patience; but none the less with a stony heart. Their Lordships from Scotland in another place have put the case even more forcefully than we have been able to do, and the argument is irresistible, unless the intention is to resist for the sake of resistance. I would beg the Minister to reconsider this matter, in view of the fact that Scotland will have no effective voice whatever in the running of the transport of her country.

Mr. Barnes: If I may have permission from the House, I will reply to some of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). Apparently he has overlooked the fact that an Amendment was accepted in another place that in special circumstances, the Commission and the undertaker can contract out of this compulsory acquisition. Further, on Clause 52, in which terms and other matters are dealt with, the hon. and gallant Member will also recollect that the position in the North of Scotland and in coastal towns was met by another Amendment which directed the Commission to take into account all special circumstances of that character.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, admit that in the Commission there will be no effective voice from Scotland?

Mr. Barnes: With regard to the matter raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) about driving the small man out of business, I must say that I think that has been grossly exaggerated during the debates. I would point out to him that under the test in the Bill it is estimated that approximately 20,000 "A"long-distance hauliers' vehicles will be taken over, which will mean one in every four affected. In regard to the "B" licences, it is estimated that only between 2,000 and 3,000 out of 58,000 will be taken over. Therefore, a vast majority of undertakers will carry on. It is true that in certain conditions a permit will operate, but an Amendment has been accepted in another place and a good deal of flexibility has been introduced on that point.
The hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) appeared to be discussing a later Amendment rather than the Amendment which is before the House. Perhaps I might deal now with the points he raised. While he was speaking it occurred to me, that if this latest Amendment is such a commendable solution of this problem, it appears to have been rather belated in making its appearance only at this stage of the proceedings. I would have thought that it would have been advanced earlier. Even the Road Haulage Association have not put this matter forward. In the long run it comes to this, that the original formula was considered very carefully on such expert advice as we could command. The number of vehicles at present in the scheme is not an unreasonable proportion, and therefore I see no reason at all, and no evidence has been advanced, why that figure should be whittled away. We have had quite a long Debate on this matter, and I hope that the House will now agree to a decision being made.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I really do not think that the House can fully accept the demand made by the Minister in this case. I have listened to both Debates with the greatest care and have tried


to find out exactly where the difference between the parties lies in this matter. Having heard the Minister, not for the first time, I have come to the conclusion that there is really nothing substantial in the argument he is putting forward. As I understand it, we start from the proposition upon which both parties are agreed—for the purpose of this Amendment long distance haulage, where-ever that may be defined, shall be taken over, and short distance haulage shall not be taken over. The Government have put forward the figure of 25 miles—I am simplifying the thing a great deal—and the Opposition have put forward the figure of 40 miles, which the right hon. Gentleman complains has been put forward rather late. I do not think there is anything in that. The only difference between the parties on that point is that the Opposition sought to be reasonable and the Government have been completely unrelenting.
Leaving aside the question of whether the figure was late or early, it seems to me that a difference in principle has emerged in this discussion. The Opposition claim that 40 miles is a more realistic figure than 25 miles as a definition of long distance haulage. I have not heard one argument—and I have listened very attentively—from the benches opposite to controvert that contention. On the contrary, the argument which is put forward to counter it does not seek to dispute the contention at all. It is put on totally different grounds. That argument is, "If we did admit that 40 miles was a more realistic figure and if we were to abandon the artificial figure of 25 miles, we should not get enough vehicles in our scheme." The only point which the House has to consider at this stage is whether or not that is an adequate argument with which to reply to the Opposition's contention. For my part I cannot be satisfied. After all, I should have thought that what the right hon. Gentleman gained on the swings with that argument, he would have lost on the roundabouts. If he takes the larger figure as a definition of long-distance haulage it is true that he will take fewer vehicles over, but he will have less work to do. If he takes the smaller figure, it is true he will get a great many more vehicles, but he will also have a great deal more work to do. If in a given stage the right hon. Gentleman is going to be faced with a

shortage of vehicles to do the work which he has undertaken under the Bill, it can only be because for some reason or another he, plus the remains of private enterprise, are unable to provide the services that were provided by private enterprise before the Bill. That is a concession which, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman will be driven to make after years of experience, which it seems to me a little odd to find out now.
If the truth be that there are too few vehicles in the road haulage industry at the present time, the right hon. Gentleman has only to say so and it is open for him to order more, but if the truth be that the object of this relentless opposition to a series of Amendments put forward in a spirit of realism and compromise is to do the very thing which he has undertaken not to do, which is to nationalise the short-distance haulage, then I can only say there are more honourable ways of behaving than that in which the right hon. Gentleman would then be behaving. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can think, even at this late hour, of a totally new case, I myself am absolutely confirmed in my conviction that the Government opposition to the series of Amendments is not merely baseless, but mala fide.

Mr. Oliver Poole: Nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's arguments justifies even at this late stage pursuing the question any further, and if any further argument were needed to reply to the right hon. Gentleman it is to be found in the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). However, there is one further reason why I should like to be allowed to address another word on this matter to the right hon. Gentleman, and it is the fact that the Government have shifted their ground in the arguments which they have put forward. When we discussed this in Committee and later on Report, the argument broadly used was that some figure had to be selected and it was bound to be an arbitrary figure. The Minister now bases the whole of his argument on that statement that if there were this extended radius there would not be enough vehicles to carry out the work that the Commission have in mind. That is quite a different argument. It is not an argument that I would necessarily say, without a great deal of consideration, is one that could not be supported. It is not one with which I agree. It is only fair, if it is going to


be put forward—and I think that it is almost the first time it has been stated in any detail—that this House should have more information. It is quite wrong that we should be asked to disagree with an Amendment of this kind, unless the Minister can tell us clearly, the figures that he has in mind, the number of vehicles that he expects to take over, the number of vehicles that he would be reduced to, and why he thinks that the larger number of vehicles is essential. We want the statistics upon which all this is based. We should not be asked to vote on this till we have had figures and know the basis of the arguments and calculations.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I hope hon. Members opposite will not make somnambulistic noises when I speak, because that will help me to go on at greater length. I must press for an answer to the questions fairly put by my hon. Friend. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how many vehicles he will lose? That is a fair test. I think the point between the Opposition and the Government on the merits of this case is even narrower than that mentioned by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). The only point is how you measure the distance. There is a limit of 25 miles radius laid down first of all. Beyond that the Government state that vehicles can travel up to 39.9 miles. They never explain why in one case you should have that radius, and why, if you go beyond it, you go before the wretched tribunal. How many vehicles would the Government say would go into the scheme on their own system with a radius of 25 miles plus the distance measurement of 39.9 miles Would it be fewer in respect of a distance of 39.9 miles than if you merely had a radius of 40 miles? That is the point I really think we ought to be told about. It is as narrow as that. Before we are asked to go to the trouble of walking through the Division Lobbies, could we have an answer? It is, after all, the Parliamentary Secretary's case. It is his case that he will lose a lot of vehicles. Could he tell us how many he will lose before we go to a Division?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We do think that this question, which is of the greatest importance to the small haulier, must in fairness to the Committee be answered. We have most

courteously, on several occasions, asked for a figure to which an answer has not been given.

Mr. Barnes: I gave the figures to the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower).

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman, I think, can scarcely ride out of it on that. He was asked about certain distances and he has not been able to give us those distances. This question of distances, as he knows, is very nearly the key of the Bill and the House should be given all possible information before it passes from this last occasion. We are not anxious that the discussion should go on—although if it is thought it should we are perfectly ready—but the point of the hauliers is a point of fundamental importance to the Bill and to the many small men who are going to be affected one way or the other and many of whom will be put out of business. Therefore, before we pass from this point, it is only reasonable and decent to the small men that the Minister should give statistics which have been asked for repeatedly on this side. If I were the Minister on the other side, and I were asked to give figures, even though I thought I had already dealt with the point, I should be only too glad to do so, to shorten discussion. I do not think it is an unreasonable question, and I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to give us the information even if he thinks we are being unreasonable. Let him waive that point and give the information for which we are asking.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I rise to say——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot rise to say. He can rise to ask permission to speak again.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I was going to ask a question. I did not intend to speak a second time. The question was whether the right hon. Gentleman would give the actual numbers of the vehicles he would lose between the 25 miles and the 40 miles. '

Mr. Assheton: I think we are entitled to be given this information. After all, the House has to come to a decision and we are lacking the information which would enable us to come to that decision. It is no good the Minister saying he has given us these figures; I have been listening to this Debate as


carefully as other people, and we have not been given an answer. We want to know the difference between the proposal in this Bill and in the Amendment. If the Minister will say on what occasion he gave us these figures, I will be most obliged.

Mr. Barnes: I have given them.

Mr. Assheton: I want the Minister to tell us on what occasion he gave the figures. He has not given them tonight. I cannot conceive how he gave us the figure on any other occasion.

1.30 a.m.

Brigadier Mackeson: The Minister is misinformed in suggesting that we are already in possesion of these figures. I want to ask whether he has the figures or not. I should like to pursue another line. I believe that in not accepting this Amendment the Government are making a very grave mistake. On Wednesday we shall be appealed to for a tremendous effort to get this country out of the mess in economic manpower. For a considerable period a very large number of people in our transport services will be spending their time running about asking whether their concern is to be nationalised or not, just in the middle of one of the biggest economic crises that could have occurred. If the number could be reduced by taking over fewer lorries, there would be a decrease in the waste of man hours. It is a strong point, and the Minister will recognise in a year or two that he would have been well advised to consider and accept it.

Major Legge-Bourke: As the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole) said tonight, the grounds on which the Minister indicated previously that he was supporting the 40-mile limit are different from those he has given tonight. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman said he supported that figure on the ground that some figure had to be chosen. Tonight he says the reason is that he would lose a lot of vehicles if he did not choose that figure. I hope he will clear the minds of those hon. Members who have asked questions, and also the minds of those who were not on the Committee. Tonight we are left in complete confusion as to the grounds on which he supports that figure. There is one other point I would like him to deal with. That is the proposal in page 48, line 36, to leave out Subsection (3). The Minister referred in his latter remarks

to Clause 52. The effect of the omission of this provision would be that the distance is a measure of radius and not distance along the road. It seems to me that the Minister could well accept this Amendment, even if he persists in refusing the other two, on the grounds that under Clause 52 the matter is based entirely on radius for those vehicles left outside nationalisation. I should have thought, for the sake of unanimity alone, it would have been worth while. I hope the Minister will at least give us a reply to that.

Sir William Darling: As the Bill also applies to Scotland, perhaps it may be permissible to speak on that subject. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will help me in my difficulty. He is familiar, like the right hon. Gentleman, with the roads in Scotland, England and Wales. Between the capital of the West, which is Glasgow, and the capital of Scotland, which is Edinburgh, there is a road 51 miles long. I want to know how many vehicles the Minister has in mind will be required for his scheme on that road, because vehicles run from Edinburgh 25 miles out and from Glasgow towards Edinburgh for 25 miles? There is a third location called Linlithgow, which is 25 miles from Edinburgh and Glasgow. The effect of the Bill seems to me to disable Edinburgh hauliers from going to Glasgow because the maximum radius is 39.9 miles and the Glasgow hauliers from going to Edinburgh because they are limited to 39.9 miles. So one is setting up in fact a new centre of transport for that area—the royal burgh called Linlithgow.
That is what apparently will happen all over the country. Because of this classification of 25 miles or 39.9 miles, decentralisation is caused, which may in many ways be excellent for the whole of the transport industry. But questions such as the erection of suitable depots, the increase of employees in one area and the decrease of employees in others, all such questions are raised by this. In the North of Scotland, where long distances occur around the lakes and deviations of the coastline, there will be areas not served at all. I think the Minister, faced with a difficult problem—which, incidentally, is self-imposed and which he has assumed on his own broad shoulders—should explain to hon. Members who, having to face their constituents, will have to elucidate these matters.
If he will accept the example of these two capital cities, I shall be very grateful for his explanation. Scottish Members are entitled to this because there is no representative of Scotland on the Front Bench. Scotland has a very wide and long region which is undeveloped from the transport point of view. The Minister has planned for developing the roads in other parts of the United Kingdom and we are more deeply concerned about the coverage we are going to get in our transport. I hope we shall get this information. I do not mind sitting here very late to get it. Scotland will like to know how they will be affected in detail—if new depots are to be built and where; Which areas will need more men and which areas will need fewer men, and about new series of circuits of delivery. All these are implied in this question, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will do something to elucidate this matter.

Mr. Frank Byers: I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister in this matter because surely it is the right of the House of Commons to have these figures? What is the difference between 25 miles and 40 miles radius?—[An HON. MEMBER: "Fifteen miles."]—We have already heard that the answer the Minister was protesting he had given to the hon. Member below the Gangway, was not the right answer and the hon. Member said it was not the answer he required. Has the Minister got the figures? I suspect he has not got them, and I believe that this is one of those occasions which has occurred throughout this Bill when the Minister does not know what he is going to do. He has no idea, no clue as to what he is taking over, for the simple reason that this Bill has not been worked out properly. If he wants to deny that accusation now is the time. I have raised this question on several occasions, on Report and Committee. We have had occasions arising when the Minister simply did not know. On one occasion the Parliamentary Secretary was caught with one leg in the Committee and the other with his advisers trying to find out the position because he simply did not know. I challenge the Minister now. If he does not state the difference then I shall conclude, and the House will conclude that he simply does not know.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I wish to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned" to give the Minister a chance of getting these figures. It is obvious——

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the right hon. and learned Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. Eden: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I am reluctant to intervene—[Interruption.] I have listened to this discussion quietly from a little further down. [Interruption.] At any rate, it is my right to speak, and I am going to exercise it. I had hoped that by the courtesy of the House it would have been possible for my right hon. and learned Friend to put his point. As it is not, I now ask leave to move that the Debate be adjourned in order to enable the Government to give the House information to which it is fully entitled. There are three explanations which the right hon. Gentleman can advance in defence of his attitude. He can say, and I understand that he is arguing, or at any rate his Friends are arguing for him, that the information has already been given. I have had some years of Parliamentary experience, and I have known Ministers think it wise to give information more than once if need be. If the only reason why the right hon. Gentleman does not want to give the information now is because he has given it already, I suggest that it would be a good thing for him to give it again, and save himself and the House some trouble. [Interruption.] I make that suggestion to the House and to the Minister, and I am going to get it over in my own time, however long it takes.

Mr. Pritt: rose——

Mr. Eden: I am not in the least interested in the hon. and learned Gentleman's interjection.

Mr. Pritt: I am only asking the right hon. Gentleman to do what I suppose he does on 365 days in the year, and keep his temper.

Mr. Eden: When I am in need of lessons from the hon. and learned Gentleman I will come humbly to him. I


seem to remember having to give him some advice on an earlier occasion, I think in 1940.

Mr. Pritt: I had completely forgotten it. However, it was not on the Transport Bill, so why not stick to that?

Mr. Eden: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would prefer to make my speech for me.

Mr. Pritt: I think I could do it better.

Mr. Eden: Perhaps I may continue my observations to the right hon. Gentleman without interference from any of Moscow's allies. I was about to say that the second alternative is this, that he has the information and does not wish to give it. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman, and I think he would agree, that that would not be a fair or proper attitude to adopt to the House at this stage of the Bill. The third alternative is that he has not got the information. He will not think it unfair, I hope, if I say that the course of this discussion leads one inevitably, however reluctantly, to that conclusion. If that is the case, I think it would be franker, and more helpful to the Government, if he said so. All I ask is that he should treat the House fairly, on an issue on which he has been pressed with great courtesy by my hon. Friends for some considerable time. I do not think I can recall an occasion when questions have been put in such courteous fashion and the Minister has completely refused to give information on a relevant issue.

Mr. Digby: On a number of occasions during the discussion of this Bill questions have been put to the Minister about the number of vehicles he is going to take over, and on more than one occasion he has based his case on the number of vehicles that he expected to get. We have had some estimate before of what number of vehicles the right hon. Gentleman expects to get on the basis of 25 miles. I think the figure was something like 20,000 "A" and "B" licence vehicles and 10,000 railway vehicles. I have seen——

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Question now is, "That the Debate be adjourned." We have now to deal with the reasons for the adjournment of the Debate, not the

reasons for and against the Amendment we were discussing before.

Mr. Digby: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to work up to that point. My submission is that it must be—as the Minister has been able to make estimates previously—it must be possible for him to make an estimate on this occasion in dealing with the Amendment. I do hot believe that we can consider the merits of this case properly until we have those figures, because the whole of the Government's case has been based on this question of the number of vehicles to be affected if the limit is extended from 25 miles to 40 miles. Without that information I do not think we can usefully give a decision on this matter.

Mr. Charles Williams: I really was hoping I should not have to weary the House by speaking tonight, but we have now arrived at a point at which we are considering the Adjournment of the Debate and I am in favour of adjourning. I am open to be persuaded by the right hon. Gentleman against adjourning, if he will help me. I am perfectly sure he would like to help me. But having been overworked, most of us, for a long time, here we are arrived at a point at which the Government are so tired, are so worn out, that they do not even answer questions on their own Amendments. That shows the state at which the House has arrived, if the Government themselves, despite all their great knowledge and the fact that they have a couple of Law Officers—or more or less Law Officers—to help them do not know the answer to a very simple question. What greater case could we have for adjournment? The hon. and Jearned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) may be aspiring to come in and help to get the Government out of their difficulties. He may or may not. He is not over-generous in his help for the Government. Surely, at the end of one long Parliamentary day, and at the beginning of another day, an ordinary day, surely at this time someone on the Government benches—a leader of the Government, one of the main leaders, one of the "Big Five" or whatever you like to call them—surely, one might come to help us, especially as one Law Officer is about to drop off to sleep. We have no doubt whatever that it is wrong that the House, at a time like this, should be asked to go on dealing with a vast industry when the Government


themselves, as at present shown, have not the haziest idea of their own Bill and what it means. That is one excellent reason for adjourning now. I could think of other reasons for adjourning. But my main object in speaking is to persuade the Minister, who is smiling in an attractive way, to tell us, if he can, if he wishes to have the chance to adjourn.
We can come back in due course and it may well be that the Minister could leave this until November. He would have had time by then to have thought it out. He has not had time to do so, and as he has not thought it out, I support my right hon. Friend because it is to the advantage of the nation and to the House of Commons, and certainly to the dignity of this House, that we should be treated differently. It is not a dignified thing for the House to be detained in this way, and we should adjourn. Such a step would be more kind to the House at the present moment for we should not have to continue to try to extract information from a Minister from whom we so often try to get something, but who, we find, has Seldom any information at all, although he wants to control everything in the shape of transport in this country.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I, in a very few words, emphasise that it is not in keeping with the traditions of this House that an Adjournment should not take place at this stage. The House is not being treated in a serious and dignified way. It is being treated frivolously by the Minister. One has to draw the line somewhere and one might as well take 40 as 25, for that is a comprehensible argument. But suddenly the Government have thought of a new argument. It may be that it was a cogent argument which has bubbled up in their minds, although they have no figures in support of it. The House is being treated in a flippant and frivolous way and in a manner not in keeping with its dignity.
Secondly, the Minister has not been man enough to admit that he has made a fool of himself. [Interruption.] I claim that he has tried to make a fool of the House, and has inevitably succeeded in doing the other. If the Minister would say that this is a sort of "hang-over "from the Bank Holiday spirit and that this idea has just occurred to him, then

the House would be sympathetic; but he has given no explanation and the Debate should be adjourned because of the frivolous way the House has been treated. If it is a serious argument, there should be some explanation. If it is not, then there is no reason at all why we should not adjourn the Debate.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I support my hon. Friends who have spoken for the Adjournment of the Debate. The position, as we on this side all know is, one of complete purgatory, but it is entirely self-imposed by the Government. There is no reason whatever why the Minister should not give the information asked for. It would be a kindly act to us on this side and I think it would also be helpful to his own supporters. There is no reason why these figures should not be made available. If the Minister has the figures, if, in fact, they are in existence, they should be made known. The Minister may have them in his pocket, although, assuming this state of purgatory in which the Government finds itself, it is likely that they have dropped out of his pocket. If that be so, let him go and get another copy. It should not take the right hon. Gentleman long to do so.
I feel particularly concerned with this matter, for in the part of the country that I have the honour to represent there will be complete confusion of mind unless some more precise information is available, for this reason: there is proposed, and, I understand, sanctioned, approved and blessed even by the Minister himself, the project of the building of the Severn Bridge. Now if the Severn Bridge is built—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members opposite do not realise the fact that its construction means the making of a roadway? I am delighted if hon. Members do realise that. The Minister will realise the implication of that. Instead of road transport having to go across the ferry he would have to build across the river. I would ask for the Adjournment so that I can clear my mind—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite never want to clear their minds. Perhaps in the middle of this week they will have some opportunity of attempting to do so. My constituents would like to have their minds clear. I would ask hon. Members opposite if the Minister has done anything


to clear their minds at all—certainly he has refused and replied that he is unable to do anything to clear their minds because he has not the figures to enable him to do so. In the circumstances we are quite entitled to ask that the Debate should be adjourned in order that we should get the facts, in order that we should know whether the Minister has the facts, and in order that the country should know whether the Minister knows what he is talking about.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to sum up to the House the position in which we are left in this Debate and the reasons why my right hon. Friend and all of us on these Benches think that the Debate should not be continued until this information is forthcoming. The only argument that has been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman against this Amendment is the number of vehicles that the Commission would be able to get, and the alleged fact that that number would be reduced below a workable number. It is important, when we are considering whether the Debate should be adjourned, that we should realise the state of our knowledge on this point. We were originally told that on the double test of the 25 miles radius and the 40 carriage the Minister would take over approximately 20,000 "A" licence vehicles, 2,500 "B" licence vehicles, and, in addition, 10,000—that is the number generally accepted—of railway vehicles. That is, he was aiming at a total number of 32,500 vehicles. As will be remembered, the Amendment which we did not get the opportunity to discuss but which was moved here, on which we were guillotined, was then moved in another place. That was to extend the radius to 50 miles and the carriage to 80 miles. On that, the information which the Government was able to give—and I only quote, of course, from what their spokesman gave in another place; the Lord Chancellor said, "I cannot give an exact number of vehicles, but if I said there would be nearer 2,000 than 20,000 "—referring to the "A" licence vehicles—I should probably be as near as anyone else. That was the remarkable state of knowledge of the Government a month ago.
2.0 a.m.
After that, the Amendment came back to this House. When we were discussing the last Amendment on that occasion, the

Government still had no knowledge of the Amendments which were then suggested to 50 miles radius and 80 miles carry. Then, as many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, in a spirit of reasonable compromise, that was reduced, wiping out the carry to a radius of 40 miles. The right hon. Gentleman got up tonight and in a speech of very few words said that would not give him enough vehicles. An hour and a quarter ago, the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole) asked for this number of vehicles. An hour and a quarter of our time at this stage of the night, and at this stage of the Session, would have been saved if the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary had given us the number of these vehicles. If the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary have not taken the trouble, a month after this point was raised in another place, after it has been discussed in that place, raised here, and discussed here, to find that figure or to give us an approximation of that figure, then it does become a mockery to continue our Debate and to take away the livelihood and the businesses of people as hon. Members opposite—especially those who think they are going to do well out of it for the railway workers—are ready to do without a quiver and without a qualm. Surely the time has come when we who do feel for these people should get these figures. The Home Secretary smiles. I would remind him of a favourite saving of his:
A smile becomes him as the silver handles become a coffin.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): That is quite wrong.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is near enough for the right hon. Gentleman, and that is exactly what his smile means to the road hauliers. That is the position, and I have not overstated by a hair's breadth the position regarding the information which this House has got. In those circumstances I do suggest that it is impossible to continue the Debate unless somebody in the Government can get this information and give it to the House tonight.

Mr. Wadsworth: I must protest against a certain amount of what appears to be irresponsibility on the part of the Government. This Transport Bill is one of the most important Bills which


we have had before this House in this Session. Yet on this occasion, the Minister of Transport will not give us the proper information. I am informed, that there has been no survey made of the transport industry since this Bill was contemplated. In other words, the whole Bill has been based on guesswork. Surely, with such a major Bill as this, it is irresponsibility on the part of the Government to bring it before this House without proper information? Do Hon. Members opposite know the answer to the queries which have been made? I would declare that they do not. I also declare that the Minister himself is not informed sufficiently. We should be informed regarding the difference between the 25 miles limit and the 40 miles limit. Why did the Government decide that they would take over vehicles up to the 25 miles limit in any case? What information

Division No. 358.]
AYES.
[2.4 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Hardy, E. A.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Harrison, J.
Mort, D. L.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Moyle, A.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Nally, W.


Attewell, H. C.
Herbison, Miss M.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Austin, H. Lewis
Hewitson, Capt. M
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Hobson, C. R
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Barton, C.
Holman, P.
Oliver, G. H.


Bechervaise, A. E.
House, G.
Orbach, M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hoy, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Binns, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Eating, W.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Blackburn, A. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Parkin, B. T.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Piratin, P.


Bramall, E. A.
Irving, W. J.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Buchanan, G.
Jay, D. P. T.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Price, M. Philips


Collindridge, F.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Pritt, D. N.


Collins, V. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Proctor, W. T.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Keenan, W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Cove, W. G
Kenyon, C.
Rangsr, J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
King, E. M.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Deer, G.
Kinley, J.
Rhodes, H.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lavers, S.
Robens, A.


Diamond, J
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Dobbie, W.
Leonard, W.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Dodds, N. N.
Levy, B. W.
Sargood, R.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Scollan, T.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lindgren, G. S.
Segal, Dr. S.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dye, S.
Longden, F.
Sharp, Granville


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lyne, A. W.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Fairhurst, F.
McAdam, W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Field, Captain W. J.
McAllister, G.
Shurmer, P


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McGhee, H G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Foot, M. M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Simmons, C. J.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Gibbins, J.
McLeavy, F.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Gibson, C. W
Mallalieu, J. P. W
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Gilzean, A.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Sparks, J. A.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mayhew, C P.
Stephen, C.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Medland, H. M
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mellish, R. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Gunter, R. J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Stross, Dr. B.


Guy, W. H.
Mikardo, Ian
Stubbs, A. E.


Hale, Leslie
Mitchison, G. R.
Swingler, S.


Hall, W. G.
Monslow, W.
Symonds, A. L.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

had they? Did they put figures into a hat and draw one out? We would like information, in any case, why they decided that the 25 miles limit should be imposed. I have been through the Committee stage and the Report stage, and I have heard the various Amendments dealt with and on no occasion have we learned why the 25 miles limit has been fixed. I ask the Minister in all fairness, to treat the House with proper respect and to give an answer to a question which is a very reasonable one.

Mr. Whiteley: rose in his place and claimed to move, " That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 77.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpath)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Well's, W. T. (Walsall)
Wise, Major F. J


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
West, D. G.
Woodburn, A.


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Wyatt, W.


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Yates, V. F


Thurtle, Ernest
Wigg, Col. G. E.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Tiffany, S.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Zilliacus, K


Tolley, L.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)



Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Mr. Pearson and Captain Snow.


Weitzman, D.
Willis, E.





NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)
Pitman, I. J.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Head, Brig. A. H,
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baldwin, A. E.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Raikes, H. V.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hope, Lord J.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bossom, A. C.
Hurd, A.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Byers, Frank
Law, Rt. Hon. R K.
Sutcliffe, H.


Channon, H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Teeling, William


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Low, Brig, A. R. W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Toucha, G. C.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Digby, S. W.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Wadsworth, G.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Drewe, C
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Nicholson, G.
York, C.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Nield, B. (Chester)



Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Major Conant and Major Ramsay


Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Question put accordingly, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Division No. 359.]
AYES.
[2.14 a.m


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Pitman, I. J


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Pools, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baldwin, A. E.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Raikes, H. V.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hope, Lord J.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bossom, A. C.
Hurd, A.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Byers, Frank
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Sutcliffe, H.


Channon, H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Teeling, William


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Touche, G. C.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Vane, W. M F.


Digby, S. W.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Wadsworth, G.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Drewe, C
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Matt-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Nicholson, G.
York, C.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Nield, B. (Chester)



Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Major Conant and Major Ramsay.


Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.





NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Austin, H. Lewis
Binns, J.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Blackburn, A. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Barton, C.
Blyton, W. R.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bechervaise, A. E.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)


Attewell, H. C.
Bing, G. H. C.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

The House divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 178.

Bramall, E. A
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Buchanan, G
Keenan, W
Rogers, G. H. R


Burke, W. A
Kenyon, C.
Sargood, R


Champion, A. J
King, E. M
Scollan, T.


Collindridge, F.
Kinley, J.
Segal, Dr. S.


Collins, V. J.
Lavers, S.
Shackleton, E A. A


Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N. W.)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sharp, Granville


Cove, W. G.
Leonard, W
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Levy, B. W.
Shawcross, Rt Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Deer, G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Shurmer, P.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Diamond, J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Simmons, C. J.


Dobbie, W.
Longden, F
Skeffington, A. M.


Dodds, N. N.
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, S H. (Hull, S. W.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
McAdam, W.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Dugdate, J. (W. Bromwich)
McAllister, G.
Sparks, J. A.


Dumpleton, C. W.
McGhee, H. G
Stephen, C.


Dye, S.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stewart, Capt Michael (Fulham, E)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Fairhurst, F.
McLeavy, F.
Stross, Dr. B.


Field, Captain W. J.
Mallalieu, J. P W
Stubbs, A. E.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mann, Mrs. J
Swingler, S.


Foot, M. M.
Mayhew, C P
Symonds, A. L.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Medland, H M
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Gibbins, J.
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gibson, C. W
Middleton, Mrs L.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Gilzean, A.
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Monslow, W
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Griffiths, W D (Moss Side)
Morris, Lt.-Col H. (Sheffield, C.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Gunter, R. J
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Tiffany, S.


Guy, W. H
Moyle, A.
Tolley, L.


Hale, Leslie
Nally, W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chistehurst)


Hall, W. G.
Nichol, Mrs M E. (Bradford, N.)
Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Weitzman, D


Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Harrison, J.
Oliver, G. H.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Orbach, M.
West, D. G.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury
White, H (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Palmer, A. M. F
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Hewitson, Capt M
Pargiter, G. A.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Hobson, C. R
Parkin, B. T.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland.


Holman, P
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


House, G
Piratin, P.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hoy. J
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hudson, d. H. (Ealing, W)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Willis, E.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Hughes, H D (Wolverhampton W)
Price, M. Philips
Wise, Major F. [...]


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Pritt, D. N.
Woodburn, A


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Proctor, W T
Wyatt, W


Irving, W. J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Yates, V F


Jay, D. P T.
Ranger, J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Jeger, Dr S. W (St Pancras, S. E.)
Reid, T (Swindon)
Zilliacus, K


Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)
Rhodes, H



Jones, J. H (Bolton)
Robens, A
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Captain Snow.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. C. Williams: Now we can return and ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give these figures about which there seems to be considerable dispute. I have listened to a number of speeches on this matter and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) in his wisdom seems to think the point a very big one. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) narrowed down the point to a comparatively small one. He did that with great skill and excellence. Two able lawyers on the side to which I have the honour of belonging have different points of view as to, what these figures may be. What is more noticeable is that on the whole of the other side not only are the Ministers

ignorant and know nothing about this—I am sorry to use that harsh word about the Government—but those on the back benches opposite are apparently completely lacking in any knowledge or any understanding of what the Minister really want us to do.
That brings us to a very important point: a point we should undoubtedly know. I will not go into the details about all those concerned with the 25 miles, the 39.9, 40 or 50. I would like to point out the effect on the livelihood of the people of this country. It affects my constituency in Torquay and other towns such as Plymouth, and many other places all around the coast. We are now being asked to leave the House of Commons in a few days' time to go back to our constituents


having just done something of which we have the haziest idea. Hon. Members will be asked by their constituents what was done in the House of Commons about 2.30 a.m. and what it was that the Minister did not tell us.
The Minister, who is a kindly soul generally, ought to give us this information so that there may be no disputing it and there may be no trouble. It has been pointed out that if he has the figures he could give that explanation in a very few words. The whole of this trouble could have been avoided if he had followed his natural inclination and that wisdom which he sometimes shows, but he has not done so. The very fact that he has denied us here when he is supposed to know can only mean that outside it will be thought that he is hiding something, and that is not his intention, I am sure. It may be thought that he has not been supplied with the proper information, and that I am sure is the case. If that is so he is asking the House of Commons to vote completely and absolutely blindly, on a matter affecting the lives and livelihood of many tens of thousands of people and to vote blindly on a matter of transport on the eve of a terrific crisis.
For that reason I really suggest to him, if he and the Government are asking the country to treat them seriously, that he should give an answer. When they are dealing with the lives of people outside and are taking the Transport Bill through its last stages, and we ask a question which affects one of the biggest issues in the Bill, which the Government want so badly, and they have not taken the trouble apparently to find out the figures, is that really a thing which is going to make the people think the Government are serious in anything they are doing? May I put a further question to the Government? We know now that they do not know a very great deal about the figures. In this matter we have not heard whether they intend to relax in any way the peculiar position of certain areas, in that it is not possible to carry ordinary road transport more than a certain distance in certain directions. If one is living in or near a sea port, one is circumscribed, and, no one yet on the Government Bench has endeavoured to show how the problems of these particular areas like Torquay or other seaside towns will be met.
2.30 a.m.
The suggestion I wish to make to the Government is—the hon. Lady the Member for Sutton, Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) need not be afraid; I am not going to refer to her, except to notice that she is there—that they cannot give the figures because they have worked out nice automatic figures for what happens in the case of a town that is 25 miles inland, but have not been able to work out any figures for the towns at the seaside. That is the only reason that has been given so far why we have not got the figures. I have only made one or two remarks on this question, which vitally affects the lives of many people in the county in which I live. We have not been allowed to hear anything about the effects of the matter on Wales, and the members of the Welsh Party have not been able to express any opinion on it.
There are large numbers of hon. Members who have not been able to put their case properly. I have tried to put mine—I am glad hon. Members opposite appreciate that this is matter on which they can afford to laugh at their own Government, who have not the haziest idea even at this stage how many people they are going to throw out of a job—and I thank hon. Members opposite for giving me the opportunity. It is a monstrous way of treating the House of Commons. It is a monstrous abuse of the power of a great majority, a power which has been used as no majority has ever used it before, to refuse to give not only to the House but to the country as a whole the figures on which the Government base their estimates for destroying the livelihood of those men and women who kept transport going in the wartime, to whom the Government had to appeal to get them out of their difficulties last spring, and bring food to the people. I would ask that out of respect for those people, and respect for the dignity of the House of Commons, the Government should not refuse to give the figures.

Mr. Lord John Hope: If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government persist in this refusal to give these figures, which have been fairly asked for, they will have done a most remarkable thing, they will have surpassed in footling ineptitude the performance they put up in the Conscription


Bill—and more than that I cannot say.

Mr. Whiteley: rose in his place and claimed to move, " That the Question be now put."

Division No. 360.]
AYES.
[2.40 a.m.


Adam", Richard (Balham)
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton W.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Rhodes, H.


Allan, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Robens, A.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Irving, W. J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Attewell, H. C.
Jay, D. P. T.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Austin, H. Lewis
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St Pancras, S E.)
Sargood, R.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Scollan, T.


Barton, C.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Segal, Dr. S.


Becherwaise, A E.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Bing, G. H. C.
Keenan, W.
Sharp, Granville


Binns, J.
Kenyon, C.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Blackburn, A. R.
King, E. M.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St. Helens)


Blyton, W. R.
Kinley, J.
Shurmer, P.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Lavers, S.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Simmons, C. J.


Bramall, E. A.
Leonard, W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Buchanan, G.
Levy, B. W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S W)


Burke, W. A
Lewis, A. W. J (Upton)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Champion, A. J
Lindgren, G. S.
Sparks, J. A.


Collins, V. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Stephen, C.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W)
Longden, F.
Stewart, Capt- Michael (Fulham, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Lyne, A. W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
McAdam, W.
Stross, Dr. B.


Deer, G.
McAllister, G.
Stubbs, A. E.


de Freitas, Geoffroy
McGhee, H G.
Swingler, S.


Diamond, J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Symonds, A. L.


Dobbie, W.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Dodds, N. N.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mallalieu, J. P W
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Medland, H. M.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Fairhurst, F.
Mellish, R. J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Field, Captain W. J.
Middleton, Mrs. L
Tiffany, S.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, lan
Tolley, L.


Foot, M. M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Monslow, W
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow)


Gibbins, J.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H (Sheffield, C.)
Weitzman, D.


Gibson, C. W.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Gilzean, A.
Moyle, A
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Nally, W.
West, D. G.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Gunter, R. J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Guy, W. H.
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, F. T (Sunderland)


Hale, Leslie
Orbach, M.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Hall, W. G.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Palmer, A. M. F
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hardy, E. A.
Pargiter, G. A.
Willis, E.


Harrison, J.
Parkin, B. T.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wise, Major F. J


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Piratin, P.
Woodburn, A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F
Wyatt, W.


Hewitson, Capt. M
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Yates, V. F


Hobson, C. R.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Holman, P.
Price, M. Philips
Zilliacus, K.


House, G.
Pritt, D. N.



Hoy, J.
Proctor, W. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Mr. Pearson and Captain Snow.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ranger, J.





NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Channon, H.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Baldwin, A. E.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Elliot, Rt Hon. Walter


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Crowder, Capt. John E.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M


Bossom, A. C.
Darling, Sir W. Y.
Galbraith, Cmdr T. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Digby, S. W.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Grimston, R V.


Byers, Frank
Drayson, G. B.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 76.

Hogg, Hon. Q.
Mellar, Sir J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hope, Lord J.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N J.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E
Teeling, William


Hurd, A.
Nicholson, G.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Nield, B. (Chester)
Thorneycroft, G E. P. (Monmouth)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Touche, G. C.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Vane, W. M. F.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H M.
Wadsworth, G.


Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Pitman, I. J.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Low, Brig. A. R. W
Raikes, H. V.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Ramsay, Major S
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Rayner, Brig. R.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Maclay, Hon. J. S
Sanderson, Sir F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Spearman, A. C. M.
York, C.


Marples, A. E.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)



Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendments."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. O. Poole: (seated and covered) On a point of Order. Am I right in understanding that we are not voting on all three Amendments in page 48, but only on that in page 48, line 23?

Mr. Speaker: I put all three Amendments together because they all hang together. They are one Lords Amendment. They are one suggested Lords Amendment, an Amendment to which we objected. They, therefore, hang together and must be put together.

Division No. 361.]
AYES.
[2.45 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Foot, M. M.
Kinley, J.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lavers, S.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gibbins, J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Anderson, A, (Motherwell)
Gibson, C. W
Leonard, W.


Attewell, H. C.
Gilzean, A.
Levy, B. W.


Austin, H. Lewis
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Lindgren, G. S.


Barton, C.
Griffiths, W. O. (Moss Side)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gunter, R. J
Longden, F.


Bing, G. H. C.
Guy, W H.
Lyne, A. W.


Binns, J.
Hale, Leslie
McAdam, W.


Blackburn, A. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
McAllister, G.


Blyton, W. R.
Hardy, E. A.
McGhee, H G


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Harrison, J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)


Bramall, E. A
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
McLeavy, F.


Buchanan, G
Herbison, Miss M.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Burke, W. A
Hewitson, Capt. M
Mayhew, C. P.


Champion, A. J
Hobson, C. R.
Medland, H. M.


Collins, V. J.
Holman, P.
Mellish, R. J.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
House, G.
Middleton, Mrs. L


Cove, W. G.
Hoy, J.
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Mitchison, G. R.


Deer, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Monslow, W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Diamond, J.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Dobbie, W.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Moyle, A.


Dodds, N. N.
Irving, W. J.
Nally, W.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Jay, D. P. T.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Jones, D T (Hartlepools)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Oliver, G. H.


Fairhurst, F.
Keenan, W.
Orbach, M.


Field, Captain W. J.
Kenyon, C.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
King, E. M.
Palmer, A. M. F.

Mr. Poole: Further to that point of Order, Sir. It was agreed on the previous occasion by you that although Amendments would be taken together in blocks, when it came to a question of dividing on them we should, if we wished to do so, take all three separately.

Mr. Speaker: That is another point altogether. We disagreed with the Lords in one Amendment. They sent back a suggested Amendment which they divided into three separate parts. They all hang together. Although they are three, they are really three in one.

The House divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 76.

Pargiter, G. A.
Shurmer, P
Wallace, G. D. (Chistehurst)


Parkin, B. T.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamslow, E.)


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Skeffington, A. M.
Weitzman, D.


Pearson, A.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Piratin, P.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Plaits-Mills, J. F. F.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F
West, D. G.


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Sparks, J. A
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Stephen, C.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Price, M. Philips
Stewart, Capt Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Pritt, D. N.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Proctor, W. T.
Stross, Dr B.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Pursey, Cmdr. H
Stubbs, A. E.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Ranger, J.
Swingler, S.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Symonds, A. L.
Willis, E.


Robens, A.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wills, Mrs E. A


Robertson, J. J, (Berwick)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wise, Major F. J


Rogers, G. H. R.
Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)
Woodburn, A


Sargood, R
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Yates, V. F.


Scollan, T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Segal, Dr. S.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Zilliacus, K.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thurtle, Ernest



Sharp, Granville
Tiffany, S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Tolley, L.
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan.




NOES.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hogg, Hon. Q
Raikes, H. V.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hope, Lord J.
Ramsay, Major S


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hurd, A.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bossom, A. C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W
Spearman, A. C M


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Butler, Rt. Hon R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Byers, Frank
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Channon, H.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Teeling, William


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Low, Brig. A. R. W
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col, O. E
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Mackeson, Brig. H R
Touche, G. C.


Darling, Sir W Y
Maclay, Hon. J S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Digby, S. W.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Wadsworth, G.


Dower, Lt.-Col A. V G. (Penrith)
Marples, A. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Drewe, C.
Mellor, Sir J
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj C. E.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Nicholson, G.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fraser, H. C. P (Stone)
Nield, B. (Chester)
York, C


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P



Galbraith, Cmdr. T D.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Commander Agnew and


Grimston, R. V.
Pitman, I. J.
Major Conant.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

CLAUSE 52.—(Additional restrictions on carriage of goods for hire or reward.)

Lords Amendment in page 66, line 8, leave out "twenty-five" and insert "fifty."

The Lords did not insist on the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:

Page 66, line 8, leave out "twenty-five" and insert "forty."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is an Amendment which we have discussed in various forms, and with certain variations, many times in the Committee

and in this House. We have stated our view very firmly—a view at which we have arrived after the most careful consideration—that if the Commission is to carry out the duty which is placed upon it in this Bill and to get a properly integrated transport service in this country, including a monopoly of the long-distance road haulage, it will only be able to do so if the local haulier is confined within a radius which is a reasonable one for local haulage. I have explained to the House on numerous occasions—and I do not want to repeat the arguments—why we consider 25 miles is reasonable. I have also given numerous examples of the views expressed by individual bodies by the Road Haulage Association itself, even on what constitutes long-distance and short-distance road


haulage. All these expressions of view by outside bodies, including the road haulage industry, are round about the 25 miles limit. For these various reasons, I move this Motion. If there are any further points which have not been fully discussed by this House, or by the Committee, arising out of this matter—I cannot believe that there are—I shall be very pleased, if asked to do so, to answer questions, where the information is in my possession.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would like to refer to a point which I mentioned just now, but which it would then have been out of order for me to develop. That point was about what the Minister proposed should be done, immediately the chosen day arrives, in the case of areas such as that on the edge of which I live. I am speaking about the Bristol district and the effect upon road transport of the Severn Bridge. As I see it, if this Clause remains as it is and if the Lords Amendment is rejected, the effect will be that all the present transport between Bristol and South Wales will come under the heading of long-distance transport and, therefore, will be nationalised, and placed under the control of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. When the bridge over the Severn is built, transport between Bristol and South Wales will not be a problem of long-distance transport at all, but will come within the range of short-distance which the right hon. Gentleman has assured us he does not mean to touch.
What is going to be the effect? The right hon. Gentleman is going to remove all the Bristol-South Wales traffic from the hands of private enterprise and place it under the control of the Transport Commission, because it has to go round by Gloucester or across a ferry. We do not know if the distance covered by ferry is considered road distance. I do not know whether that point has been considered in another place. Is the distance covered by a lorry when going across the Severn by ferry included in the radius or not? At the present moment, when all this transport has to go round by Gloucester, it becomes long-distance haulage, and as such is taken over by the right hon. Gentleman. What is to happen when the Severn bridge is built? It will then be short-distance transport, but all the transport will be in the grip of the right hon. Gentleman and there will be none for

private enterprise to carry the goods between Bristol and South Wales over this bridge as short-distance transport.
It will be of little use for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "That is perfectly easy; I will issue a lot of new licences." We must remember what has happened in the meantime. All the small men will have been absorbed and will be within the grip of the right hon. Gentleman, and the structure of Bristol-South Wales transport will have been destroyed. Then the right hon. Gentleman will come along and say, "Now we have got to grant more licences." But to whom? This is rather a serious aspect of the problem. I imagine that if I were a small man conducting business between Bristol and South Wales, and I was wiped out by this Bill, I should feel very sore indeed when I realised that within a few years, someone was going to get an opportunity which was denied me because of being able to go across the Severn bridge. I think this is a problem which should be answered by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The Severn bridge is not the only bridge in the world. It is not yet built, and if the present Government remain in power, it probably will never be built; but all of us, even members of H. M. Government, have dreams, and it may be that the dream will come true.

Mr. Shurmer: What about Waterloo Bridge?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Do not let us be too parochial in these matters. What will happen when the Principality is joined to England by this bridge? Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider this problem of fair play to the people who are going to come within his grip and remember their position now and the position they will be in when this bridge is built? I think this is a matter worthy of the Minister's consideration, and I hope he will now give us some indication on the matter.

3.0 a.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) has put ideas into my head which I had hardly dared to bring forward, but now I should not be out of order if I mentioned the question of the bridge across the Tay. I admit that that is even a greater chimera than


is the bridge across the Severn. I feel that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare is very apposite, because there are hauliers on one side of the Tay in the neighbourhood of Invergowrie and Dundee who take their stuff across the Tay to the other side. At the moment they must go right up by Perth to get across by road, which is a very long way. It is a fair question to ask the Minister, so long as the ferry passage is not counted in the present short distance, "What will be the position when these small men, who do the job at present, are wiped out of existence; what will be the position when the bridge is built, which will be a long way off?"These are perfectly fair questions. There is a very big trade from one side to the other. What provisions will there be to meet these particular circumstances?

Mr. Byers: I think the House ought to be grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the very frank speech he has made tonight. He says that the Government have given very careful consideration to this matter, but he advanced no argument to show what serious consideration. I take it it was the same consideration that they gave to the vehicles mentioned in the last Amendment. He says that the Government must have a monopoly, and that that is agreed to by Members on the other side. They have not the courage to go the whole way, and therefore they confine the local haulier to "a reasonable distance." I can tell them that 25 miles is not a "reasonable distance" in the County of Dorset.

Mr. Shurmer: The hon. Gentleman would not like to walk it tonight.

Mr. Byers: Under the nationalised road transport system it may well be that hon. Members will have to walk it. I am in favour of a number of nationalisation schemes, but I defy any Government to take under public ownership, and work it in the interests of the community as a whole, a system which depends on these very tiny units. Within five years that system will break down. If hon. Members want a real argument about this, let me tell them something about it. What had we to do when we wanted to shift stuff in the Army? We had to get an

R.A.S.C. company or platoon, and when we wanted to get things done in a hurry, we had to rely on the regiment with one or two vehicles with one particular officer.
That is what the Government are attempting to do in this Bill, and they will rue the day when they brought in the nationalisation of road transport. I can see that as clear as daylight. It is all very well laughing about it. I am not interested so much in the haulier. I am interested in the efficiency of the transport system of this country. I notice that there was not one word in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech about the interests of the consumer. The whole of the Government's case was summed up in that very frank and quotable speech: "We have to have a monopoly; we have to eliminate competition; we have to confine the small man to 25 miles, otherwise the scheme will not work." If that is not a reason for voting against the Government, I do not know what is.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The main reason why I want the House to disagree with the Motion proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary is not so much its gross unfairness, because that is a characteristic of Government Motions to which we are accustomed, but because it is completely contradictory of the argument which was advanced to us on the Amendments we were discussing a short time ago. In Clause 52, the Bill says quite frankly that goods shall not be carried if the vehicle at any time while the goods are being carried is more than 25 miles from its operating centre. In order to get the test—because that was what we were discussing before—which might even be de-fensibly put by the most cynical sophist, the right hon. Gentleman had to introduce into the Bill a provision that, in addition to the radius of 25 miles, there was a carry of 40 miles.
In another place, when it was sought to justify the Bill, the Lord Chancellor, speaking for the Government, said "Our proposition is to take over long-distance haulage, and the test of long-distance haulage is something over 40 miles." That was the test and, of course, under that test if a vehicle did not carry goods for 40 miles or more, even if it went outside the radius, the journey did not count as long-distance. That means it can carry one load out and another load in, and so


long as it does not go the 40 miles, it escapes nationalisation so far as that load is concerned. But once the Bill comes into force, the vehicles that escape are not to be allowed to do the very journey which was omitted from the test of long-distance. The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but, really, no amount of head shaking will change the fact. I do not know whether he was in the House when the right hon. Gentleman answered by the most amicable head shaking certain questions which I put to him on the last Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman was here, he will remember that I put to him specifically whether a vehicle could travel 39.9 miles even though the last 14.9 miles was outside the 25 miles' radius. The right hon. Gentleman nodded assent, and the hon. Gentleman will find that I duly noted it by commenting on it in my speech, if he cares to look in HANSARD tomorrow.
On a moment's reflection, he will not deny it. Under the test, a vehicle can go anything up to 40 miles, even outside the 25 miles radius and that does not count as a long-distance journey. That is included in order to give some colour to this completely indefensible and groundless test; but when you come to nationalisation then you do not allow the vehicle to make a journey up to 40 miles. You limit and clamp it down to 25 miles. My hon. Friends and myself have been trying to imagine what the reason could be, not so much, as I say, for the unfairness, but for this extraordinary difference between the test and the limitation. There are two reasons which present themselves and my hon. Friends will, no doubt, develop them more fully that I shall. The first is, of course, that the Minister is afraid of the Commission's ability, that he cannot imagine this unfortunate and emasculated Commission that is not even to have enough power to appoint its own agents being able to compete with local hauliers if local hauliers are allowed one more than 25 miles. That is not a very hopeful view of the Commission's ability with which to start this new scheme. That is the first suggestion. It really looks—to say the least—as if the Ministry of Transport were extremely afraid of the Commission's ability, just as they are afraid of it even being able to appoint its own agents.
The other reason is—this may commend itself as more likely to hon. Members opposite—that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have such a fierce hunger for centralisation that they attempt this method of getting more and more short-distance haulage; and, after all, if they abandon the test—after they say of the test there must be not only a 25 miles radius but a 40 mile carry—it does not lie in their mouths to say a 25 miles limitation is not a short-distance haul. If they are so afraid of that competition and insist on these powers—that is one thing. If they want them all centralised in the Commission, we know where we are.
We on this side say—and I venture to prophesy this without any hesitation—that there is only one thing that is absolutely essential and that is that road transport ought to have local application. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and anyone who has taken an interest in this Bill from the start to have a look and they will find that every journal except the "Daily Herald" and the "New Statesman" stated that the greatest weakness in this Bill, so far as road transport was concerned, was that it made no provision for decentralisation and the local application of road transport. During the past eight months we have sought in vain for some principle of local application. We have found none. The only principle we have found is more and more centralisation—as we have found in the rejection of this Amendment—and we say that this is control for the sake of control. It is not even planning in the way this has been suggested. It is merely trickery. The Government put forward a test, and get quite worked up about it if anyone dares to oppose the test, as to what is long-distance and what is short-distance transport. Then, when it is a matter of trying to smash competition so that the weak-kneed Commission can have some chance of functioning, they reject any test and adopt a fiercer limitation.
When one considers some of the calamities of this Measure, one is not surprised but rather shocked that contradictory arguments, and contradictory provisions, should be commended to this House, and one comes back to one thing, and one thing only, that for. the purpose, which is becoming more and more clear and obvious, of feather-bedding their own supporters in the railway unions, the Government


are quite prepared to kill the road transport of this country, whatever be the cost to the consumer. Unless some further explanation is forthcoming, that fact will go out even more clearly to the people of this country.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Basil Nield: The Parliamentary Secretary, in moving the rejection of this Amendment, stated once again that the purpose of this part of the Bill is to acquire for the Transport Commission a monopoly in long-distance haulage, and it follows that the inference is that the Government should leave the short-distance haulage industry as it is. What we say is that the Government impose as a test a radius of 25 miles in order to catch the short-distance road hauliers. From a purely practical point of view, I ask the House to consider the effect of this qualification of 25 miles. In the built-up areas it is quite plain that a haulier left on his own account can never travel to the next town except in crowded parts of the country. It follows that in rural areas it leads him nowhere, and it is no exaggeration to say that this is not leaving hauliers in any part of the industry in a position to cope properly with the situation.
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that what the Government most fear is competition from those who are left. That is the practical side of this matter. We are definitely certain that a 25 mile radius is quite unjust and unfair. In another place they have suggested 40 miles. That is little enough. I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary a question which has been asked before, but not answered this evening, and it is about the position of operators in coastal districts. We are familiar with some of these districts where the arc of the circle may well be halved. Is there to be any special arrangement with regard to the hauliers in those areas? It would certainly be fair to do so. For those reasons, I ask the House to support my right hon. and learned Friend and not the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brigadier Mackeson: I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question which I. asked on the last occasion we discussed this Bill. Surely, when this Bill becomes an Act, if the radius is 40 miles as opposed to 25 miles,

the amount of burden placed on the police to enforce it will be a good deal less than if it were 25 miles. How is it proposed to prevent these men from going outside the 25 miles radius? Are we to have police traps, traffic "cops," "snoopers," or blackboards? I do not believe it is right to have a law which it is difficult to enforce. When we hear the serious statement which is to come on Wednesday, we shall have to think quickly and clearly how we can save man-power, and I believe that to have a large number of men doing something to stop men who are only trying to earn their own living is not a very constructive action.
Regarding the coastal towns, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will make some statement. Surely, there should be some modification so that the areas which these people on the coast cover will be the same as for those operating inland. I can see in this connection that it is very much easier to prevent operators from going outside the 25 miles radius. In my own constituency, it is easy to cover the exits from the town, but in the Midlands it is practically impossible. I think this Bill is wide open to abuse. I do not believe it will be easy to operate, and it would be much better to increase the radius to 40 miles, which was about the range of operational transport during the war, rather than reduce it to 25 miles.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this matter purely from the angle of administration. I do not wish him to assume from what I will now say that I agree with the policy of nationalisation, but only that I am accepting it for the moment and regarding this purely as an administrative detail. He has had an opportunity of studying in HANSARD what I said on the last occasion, in which I drew a distinction between a "mode"—a statistical term—and a "peak", another statistical term. The point in this issue is that on page 48 there is a mode—the operative words are in line 16—
to a predominant extent,
that is to say, the words" 25 miles "there are not a peak, but a mode. The short-distance haulier is defined in Clause 39 as, somebody who operates predominantly at 25 miles. He is often going outside 25 miles, sometimes as far as 75 miles, and occasionally up to 120 miles,


but predominantly he is a short-distance haulier. When, however, we come to page 66 it ceases to be a mode and becomes a statistical peak; and if there is one thing that stands out as an administrative factor, it is that you cannot have the same figure in both cases. It is, logically, absolute nonsense, because the peak is a much more onerous and restrictive term than the mode. In other words, the haulier who has been a genuine short-distance haulier—I would like the Parliamentary Secretary's attention, because I think this is a sound point—that haulier, before nationalisation, is defined as a short-distance haulier, although he is operating occasionally over 25 miles, and it would be appropriate to give him a peak figure much in excess of 25. If you are looking about for a peak figure to give him, I should have thought mat for a mode of 25 miles, a peak figure of 50 miles would be a good one. In the original Lords Amendment it was 50. It has come down to 40. But there is one figure that it cannot be in logic, justice or anything else, and that is 25 miles. I submit that in this Amendment the Lords are not chiselling. They are not trying to defeat the main purpose of the Minister of Transport by putting in an arbitrary figure; they are trying to write into this a bit of sense, a bit of statistical logic. What is illogical is to put the same figure in the mode as in the peak.

Mr. O. Poole: The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say that he would answer certain questions, if he considered them reasonable, that were put to them. If he had adopted that attitude on a previous Amendment, we should all have been on our way home now, if not already in bed. We have discussed this on various occasions. I do not intend to repeat any of the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends, but I would like to ask three questions which, as a result of statements he or the Minister have made, are giving me concern.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in justifying the figure of 25 miles, has referred very often to a report or document produced by the Road Haulage Association or some other representative of the industry—some report drawn up before the war—in which that body recommended only 20 or 15 miles as being the correct short distance for road transport.

The Parliamentary Secretary has, in fact, used that as an authority for the choice he has made, and he has made the point that the Government have been more lenient than that report suggested they need be. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman how he justifies quoting from that one report drawn up by a small section of the industry, if he is prepared to reject every other advice they have given him on the subject. Does he think it reasonable to keep putting forward this one paper and to keep on refusing all other subsequent opinions they have given? I am not suggesting that they were right in the first place, or right afterwards. I am only asking on what principle the hon. Gentleman accepts their advice in one instance and not in others.
Another question I should like to ask him is, how does he reconcile the decision he has made, based to some extent on the Report of the Select Committee that examined the road transport industry and road haulage organisation during the war, with that report? They published a carefully documented report. Lord Ammon, I think, was one of the members of the Committee. He has taken some part in the deliberations on this Bill in another place. I should like to know how the hon. Gentleman reconciles the Committee's recommendations and their report with regard to the distance.
One point has been made many times, and was made again tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), and that is, the question of vehicles operating on the coast or on islands. I believe I am right in saying that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that the Commission have authority to issue licences to hauliers to exceed the distance for any purpose the Commission think necessary. Therefore, if that is the answer in particular places, a permit will be given for a haulier to go longer distances than 25 miles, I should like to ask—and I should be grateful if we could have a reply, because it was asked by many of my hon. Friends—whether the Minister intends to give any specific or general instructions to the Commission to guide them in issuing licences in those circumstances? Does he intend to say to them "It is my intention that—"—or "my opinion is that—" "—you should in these circumstances issue licences to allow hauliers along the coast or in peculiary situated districts to continue their operations"?


Does he intend to give any guidance, or is it the intention of the Government that that point should be considered?
The last point to which I wish to refer is one I have raised on previous occasions, and I have never had a satisfactory answer to it, or any practical answer at all. It was raised again tonight by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson). The question is, how does the Minister intend to enforce these regulations? I do not wish to deploy the whole argument again, because I have done so before, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary knows it well. We have never had an answer to this question, and I should like to know how the Government think these restrictions, which are onerous, and unacceptable to the industry, are to be enforced. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will relax his attitude to answer some of these points.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Digby: The Parliamentary Secretary rightly said earlier that there have been many opportunities for the Government to explain to the House why they have chosen this magic figure of 25. He has spoken of other figures, such as those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole). He mentioned tonight the figure of 30. But he has produced absolutely no convincing reason, either now or at any other time, why they have leapt at this figure of 25 miles. What is the magic in this particular round figure? I must say that we are as unconvinced this evening as we have ever been. The Parliamentary Secretary apparently thought it was not a very logical kind of figure, and he spoke of 2,000 square miles of area; but as has been pointed out, that is not applicable universally. There are the coastal towns, referred to this evening, and in many previous discussions on this Bill, and there is the obvious point that there are many districts where many of these square miles would have no road at all and the haulier would find the area allotted to him quite useless for the simple reason that he could not travel across it.
Those hauliers who are to operate within the 25 miles limit find that there is nothing to protect them, even within their small area, from the cut-throat competition of the Commission's own vehicles. The Commission's executive will take over

some 10,000 of the railway compames lorries. A great many of them are engaged in short-distance work, and a great deal of it is skimming off the cream. These vehicles are to be in competition with those unfortunate road hauliers confined to this very narrow radius, but the short distance vehicles of the Commission will be subject to none of these difficulties. In short, there is the most complete unfairness, and there is the strongest case for going against this limit of 25 miles. The 40 miles suggested is a much more sensible figure, quite apart from the fact that it is more fair, as anyone will agree who is familiar with the Midlands or the South of this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) has referred to the fantastic fact that hauliers will not be able to travel between Liverpool and Manchester or between Glasgow and Edinburgh. That shows how wrong this is, and I can think of no reason—and the Government has produced none—for seeking to stick to this magic formula of 25 miles.

Mr. Bossom: The Parliamentary Secretary said that he would try to answer some questions, and I am going to ask him one which will affect seriously our food supplies. In Kent there are a number of canners of fruit. They can what they can, if they can get anything to can. Has the Parliamentary Secretary yet considered them? When the fruit is ripe, the fruit farmer telephones the canner and the factory then telephones the various hauliers, the same day, and the fruit is put into cans that night. It has to be done that way. But if the farmer or the canner has to telephone all over the place as a result of this Measure, what will happen? A great amount of the fruit canned in Kent comes from Hampshire, and that means that the present work cannot be done under this 25 miles radius. It cannot be done if all sorts of orders have to be complied with, because the whole process has to be completed in the one day, or the fruit goes bad. The fruit is collected, taken to the factory, and canned the same evening. If one has to wait for orders, or is not allowed to go more than 25 miles, much of the fruit will not be used, for the simple reason that our canners are not within 25 miles of the fruit farms. I would like to hear how that matter can be handled, and so would a lot of canners in Kent.

Mr. Wadsworth: There is one question I wish to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. Throughout the whole series of Debates we have not yet discovered why the Minister has selected a 25 miles radius. Why not take over the whole of transport? Why not take it all over, without exception of 25 miles. Why should not the Minister go up to 40 miles? I would like him to make that clear. I shall have to reply to that question in my own Division. For example, Bridlington, in my Division, is 40 miles from York and 35 miles from Hull, and people in Bridlington will want to know why they cannot take their transport either to York or Hull. In the same way, of course, the Hull people are isolated because there is no populated place within 25 miles. I would appreciate a really sensible answer to this question. Why have the Government decided on 25 miles? Why did they decide to leave a certain amount of transport free? That is a question which has never been answered in the whole series of Debates.

Sir W. Darling: I have been struck by the general title of this Clause. It is "Additional restrictions upon carriage of goods for hire or reward." It is quite clearly the intention of the Government to lay additional restrictions on the carriage of goods for hire or reward. In these days when we are looking for a freer system, is this the policy to which the Government should adhere? I am concerned about the plight of a haulier whom I know and who is condemned, under this Clause, to spend half his day idly. He is only allowed to operate his vehicle 25 miles. He can do all his little jobs in two hours. What does he do for the rest of the day? Does his vehicle lie idle and of no use? Is his valuable manpower to be stagnant? That is the picture which must occur to many in this House. A haulier is not a figment of the imagination. He is a figure we know, but are hauliers in many hundreds under Government insistence to be immobilised for half the day? That is the question which needs to be answered. Is this country in such an excellent position, with regard to manpower, particularly its delivery services, that it can afford to immobilise hundreds of thousands of men and vehicles?
Who is to be responsible for carrying out the Minister's instructions? Surely,

that calls for more than a passing reference. Who is to carry out the hundred and one necessary regulations under this Clause? Is it to be the police? Are there to be new groups of traffic "cops," of persons who say, "Twenty-five miles, thus far and no further," or "Thirty-nine point nine miles, on you go; forty miles, you stop." Who are to be the enforcement officers? There will have to be some to see that the law is carried into operation. Is it to be a further burden on the police? Already, from every local authority, there are complaints of the cost of the police. Are we going to increase the number of non-producers for the purpose of harrying road hauliers? I think the Parliamentary Secretary should answer this with a picture in his mind of the ordinary transport system of England, Scotland and Wales—not of a transport system disturbed as if a bear had put his paw into a hive of bees. This smooth-running transport, with which we have been tolerably familiar, flexible and able to meet every exigency and unexpected circumstances, is now to be swept here and pushed there, restricted here and allowed to run elsewhere. That is the picture I see, and it is the picture which the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary should see from this Clause. If it is not a police State upon which we are entering, it is a police-controlled transport system. It is a State in which a man who wants to carry on his calling, who has the vehicles and the proved capacity for carrying on that calling, has to stand in the market place because no man has hired him; because he has done his 25 miles for the day, and can do no more.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I think that most hon. Members will agree that very few fresh arguments have been advanced in the discussion on this Amendment. Many arguments have been advanced by hon. Members opposite against the principle of this Bill, which is that road haulage should be taken over by the Commission as one of their duties. Many hon. Members dislike that idea altogether, and argue against it. That I understand. But what we are discussing here is whether the limit beyond which a haulier can go without a permit shall be 25 or 40 miles. That is the sole matter in dispute on this Amendment. I would like to answer one or two points put by hon. Members who do not appreciate the limited scope of the


matter which is before the House for debate at the moment.
The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) says that many hauliers will be standing idle, because most of their work is long-distance road haulage, and they will not be allowed to do it. But that part of their concerns will be taken over by the Commission, and the road haulier will be paid substantial compensation under the terms of the Bill; and not only his vehicles, but, of course, the men employed by him, will be working for the Commission, so that no one will be standing idle. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) asked us to consider the position of the canners in Kent, who can a great deal of fruit, and suggested that on their account we should accept this Amendment. This Lords' Amendment suggests that there should be a limit of 40 miles instead of 25 miles, and unless my geography——

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: This is an important matter. The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that the long-distance haulage would be taken over. The point which I tried to make was that under the test a 39.9 miles journey was still a short-distance journey. Those who have been doing journeys up to 39.9 miles, which is short-distance under the test, will now be limited to 25 miles. Therefore, so far as these journeys of more than 25 miles are concerned, these men will be standing idle, as the hon. Member for South Edinburgh said. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with that point.

Mr. Strauss: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to come back to that point after I have dealt with the point which I had in hand. I was dealing with the case of the canners. Hauliers, under this Amendment, would be permitted to go 40 miles from their base; but I am sure that it is more than 40 miles from the canneries in Kent to the fruit fields in Hampshire. Therefore, this Amendment would not help them at all. Supposing it is right to argue that the Commission would not be able to do this quick haulage as well as anyone else—an argument which I do not accept——

Mr. Bossom: Will the hon. Gentleman say how long it will take for an order to depart from the canner to the Commission,

and for permission to be given for these trucks to go down at once? How long is that going to take?

Mr. Strauss: I would say just as long as it takes to put through a telephone call. I should like to go into that, but it would be out of Order to do so. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to realise that this is a wholly decentralised organisation. All that will be required will be one telephone call, and the lorries will be on their way. Let me deal with one or two other small points before I come to the main charge. It is suggested by hon. Members opposite that the whole thing will be complicated because new bridges may be built over the Tay or the Severn or somewhere else, which is going to make our scheme difficult or unfair. I cannot understand that argument at all. Twenty-five miles from base is going to be the limit for any road haulage firm unless that firm gets a permit; so I cannot understand hon. Members saying that it is going to be complicated or made difficult and unfair if a new bridge is built somewhere. Twenty-five miles from base is to be the area within which a local haulier can carry on unrestricted trade.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Pitman: It was not my point, but it was put by one of my hon. Friends, and it came to me fresh, as it did to the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary. The point in it, surely, is that there is the definition of a test, and then a bridge is built. What was 100 miles before becomes a 15 miles journey, and firms are penalised unnecessarily.

Mr. Strauss: I understand that point. I think hon. Members opposite—and I am now coming to one of the points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—are confusing two aspects of the problem. There is, first, the problem of which firms are to be taken over altogether. How is the Commission to decide which firms are primarily long-distance road haulage firms and which are not? To decide that we have set out a formula in this Bill; it is rough justice, if hon. Members like, but as correctly as possible it divides the firms into those which are long-distance hauliers and those which are short-distance hauliers. Such tests are laid down in Clause 39. It does not follow at all that they must be exactly the same tests to decide the extent that


hauliers who fall within the short-distance category will be permitted to operate. I think a great deal of confusion has been created by hon. Members opposite who have been trying to amalgamate the two definitions into one and saying that one must correspond exactly to the other. It is not. only not necessary that that should be so, but it would lead to serious complications if——

Mr. Orr-Ewing: As far as one can see, the words of the Parliamentary Secretary can only mean that the Commission would consider allowing transporters, for instance in the case I quoted between Bristol and South Wales, to remain short-distance hauliers and to give them a permit so to continue until the new Severn bridge is built, so that when it is built they can legitimately remain short-distance hauliers. Do I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly?

Mr. Strauss: I think I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly. If a haulier under the procedure laid down in Clause 39, remained a short-distance haulier it would be because of the test on his past performances. The performance over the last year is the test. His records in his books over a past period would be seen. If they established him a short-distance road haulier, he would be permitted to do 25 miles unless he got a permit from the Commission to go further. Whether a merchant would get such a permit or not would depend on the local circumstances and whether the Commission would be able to do the work better than the road haulier. It is a simple question, and is not complicated by the question of whether there are bridges or not.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I would like to get this right, because the Parliamentary Secretary says it will be judged on what the man was doing the previous year. If he is going from Dundee via Perth to a town in Fife, which is a very long journey, he is a long-distance haulier and he is, therefore, taken over. The following year—it will not happen, but it might—the bridge is built; he is out of business and there are no hauliers. But we want somebody to do the short-distance work across the river. Who is to take it?

Mr. Strauss: Either the Commission, or a short-distance road haulier will do

the business. Obviously, a firm that has gone out of business cannot do it. One or two other points have been raised. It has been asked, "What is to happen to the coastal towns?" The answer is that there has been inserted in the Bill a special provision in which the Commission are told to pay special attention to such factors in granting permits for over 25 miles. That is as far as it is possible to go.

Mr. Digby: What about directions?

Mr. Strauss: It is not a case of directions, since it is stated in the Bill:
The Commission shall in the exercise of their discretion take into consideration the needs of any special circumstances affecting the locality in which is situated the operating centre of any vehicle to which a permit would relate.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: What we want to know is, will the Minister give directions to the Commission in interpreting the provision he has just read out? Will he give a direction that, in interpreting that provision, special consideration should be given to coastal towns?

Mr. Strauss: I cannot say that my right hon. Friend will give directions of that sort, because there is no reason to believe that that special provision in the Bill will not be ample guidance to the Commission as to what the House has in mind. The question asked is not really relevant to the discussion, because the same problem arises where one is considering 25 miles or 40 miles, and that is the issue before the Committee.

Mr. Byers: Mr. Byers rose——

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. Member had attended the Committee upstairs more frequently, he would have known that we had discussions on that point over and over again.

Mr. Byers: If the Government had had the decency not to hold Committee meetings at the same time as sittings of the House, it would have been possible for Members to attend. It does not lie in the mouths of the Government to criticise our attendance.

Mr. Strauss: To get to the main point which, I think, is really far more relevant to the matter at issue: why did we choose 25 miles? Hon. Members select 40 miles


and say it is sensible and reasonable, but they can give no argument why it should be. They demand to know why we should say that 25 miles is correct. I am not going to take long on this at this time of night, but I could give example after example where road transport authorities and the road haulage industry—not one but a whole number of them—in evidence before the Royal Commission, in publications and so on, have quoted a figure varying between 20 and 30 miles as being a fair criterion between short distance and long distance. I say that, quite apart from the fact that we believe it is right and fair, we are fortified by the knowledge that the authorities in the road transport and road haulage industry consider our figure is fair, too.
Finally, I want to deal with the most important point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and other hon. Members, and I want to point out how utterly illogical and inconsistent are their arguments in this matter. They say that the Transport Commission cannot stand the competition of the road haulier. We therefore have to confine the road haulier to an area bounded by 25 miles radius from his base because if we allowed him to go further this weak-kneed Commission—I am quoting somebody's words—would be up against the competition of the independent road haulier and would not be able to stand such competition, and the road haulage work of the Commission would founder. They argue that at one time, and at another time they say it is wicked that the Commission should be allowed to compete within the 25 miles area against the small road hauliers because this powerful and efficient Commission is bound to drive them out of business.
They cannot have it both ways. Either the road haulage organisation of the Commission is likely to be so inefficient and bad that the road haulier need not fear it at all in his short distance work, or it will be so strong and effective that it need not fear competition over 25 miles. I want to put to the House that these arguments are completely contradictory. Either one or the other might stand, but I think they are both wrong. I would like the House again to realise that it is the duty of the Commission to

integrate the transport services of the road haulier service of this country and to see that they are efficient—not only the Commission's road haulage service, but also that there exists an efficient and adequate private road haulier service. The Commission will have this duty imposed on it in Clause 3—to integrate an efficient transport service for the industry and people of this country.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Mr. Thorneycroft rose——

Mr. Cove: Mr. Gladstone.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Did the hon. Member wish to address the House? I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary on this Amendment at any rate, has found his voice, though considering the length of his answer I am bound to say that I do not think he dealt adequately with the powerful argument addressed to him by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). May I have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, or, if he does not fully appreciate the point, that of the Minister? Clause 39 defines what is ordinary long-distance haulage. I will quote the actual words in the Bill, because if I do so, I think the Minister will see how utterly inconsistent he is:
In this Part of this Act, the expression 'ordinary long distance carriage' means…the carriage of goods by the person … for a distance of 40 miles or upwards…that the vehicle is…more than 25 miles from its operating centre.
By implication and directly it is stated in the Act. Why is it in these circumstances that the man is not permitted to travel up to 40 miles when he is allowed to carry on? There is no reason whatsoever. These men after all, ex hypothesi, in the Government's own definition, are men who normally travel up to 40 miles.

Mr. Cove: On a point of Order. How can the business of the House be carried out when Opposition whips are asleep?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There may be hon Members who perhaps think this does not matter. I think the Minister will agree that this is a very important point. These are men who on the Government's definition, not on the definition of the Opposition, or of their Lordships' House or any other person, are men who normally travel more than 25 miles and indeed up to 40 miles distance. Why are they now not allowed to do it? The Parliamentary


Secretary produced what I thought was an extraordinary argument. He said there was no conceivable connection between these two classes. What does this argument mean? It means you put people into a particular category because they do a particular thing, but having put them there, you do not allow them to do the very thing you put them there for. It is as if I was looking for a team of sprinters and said, "I want only men who"—[Interruption]—I might find some hon. Members opposite—"could do 100 yards in 12 seconds." I would put them all into that class, but having put them in, I would say, "You must not do 100 yards in 12 seconds, you must all take at least 15 seconds to do it."It is a preposterous state of affairs to have a contradiction as flat as that in any Bill.
I would ask the Minister to consider, apart from the extraordinarily contradictory nature and the unfairness of it, the effect on the road haulier. Just think of the man who normally has been carrying on business beyond 25 miles. That is the very thing the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) spoke on in a very eloquent speech—[Interruption.] It was a much more eloquent speech than we have heard from any Members opposite. He carries on business and normally part of his business was to go beyond 40 miles. It is untrue to say, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, that these vehicles are going to be taken over. They are not. They are not ordinary long-distance hauliers. It is perfectly true he may well lose a certain number of his vehicles going up to 50, 60 or 100 miles because of the definition; but those vehicles which the Government admit are perfectly proper trade for the short-distance haulier, he will not lose. These will stand idle until, I suppose, the Minister comes to the state of selling them when he cannot use them. I would ask the Minister, because I think he must have appreciated this point by now, if he can give one single reason why this category of men defined by himself as hauliers only going up to 40 miles, should not be allowed to travel up to 40 miles. If he can give one reason, perhaps not a very good one, I think some of his supporters behind will go into the Lobby with a lighter heart than they must have done this evening.

Mr. Hogg: I am less concerned with the blatant inconsistency of the Parliamentary Secretary than with the cynical want of

candour with which the House of Commons has been treated this evening. We spent over two hours on the previous Amendment with the Government trying to justify their provision on the urgent grounds that they had to get within the scheme all the road transport they could. We are now dealing with the question of distance in which it has been made abundantly clear that, once you have allowed to remain outside the scheme men in a certain category—those who are habitually carrying out journeys of 40 miles for certain purposes—they will not be allowed to carry out those journeys for the purposes of the scheme once it comes into operation. If that be true and it has not been denied, what becomes of the argument that there was a shortage of vehicles? Either those journeys which were habitually carried out before will not be undertaken at all, or undertaken by a Commission who are so short of vehicles that they cannot allow them to be used. Earlier in the evening when the Parliamentary Secretary spoke he knew ail the time that the information had never been given. This illustrates more clearly than his extraordinary performance on the last Amendment that the whole attitude of the Government has been shaped by a cynical want of faith in the House of Commons.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I hope the Minister will answer the question which has puzzled all of us. The question I am asking is not so much whether there should possibly be different figures in the two Clauses, but what is the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) as to the figure in this clause. It is a simple question. No indication has been given by the Parliamentary Secretary of any good he thinks the figure of 25 will do. Incidentally he alleged an inconsistency on the part of the Opposition which I think is not an inconsistency at all. He said we suspected that this 25 miles must have been inserted here because the Commission were frightened of the competition of these people. Then he said it was inconsistent with that when we said they would be faced with the unfair competition of the Commission. There is no inconsistency at all and there is unfairness where one side is limited and the other is not, but the main question I am asking him is will he give one single reason, in answer to the question put by the hon.


Member for Monmouth, why this limit of 25 miles is put in this Clause. I address the request to the right hon. Gentleman with greater confidence having regard to the decision of the House not long ago on the question whether we should adjourn. The House decided we should not. The House may have felt one of two things: either that the Minister was not dumb tonight, or, to take the less optimistic assumption, that if we did adjourn he might be no less dumb tomorrow. I believe that the House took the more courteous view that he was perfectly capable of responding tonight. I hope he will.

Mr. C. Williams: I have studied the Government's attitude on this matter, and I have come to the conclusion that I can give the answer which the Government have denied the House. They have fixed on the figure of 25 miles because they think there is sufficient business in that to enable a few people to go on for a short time. They have refused to allow it to be stretched to 40 miles because they think that if they did, there would be a comparatively large number of efficient transport workers. Their wish is to smash completely the transport system, but they are afraid that unless they do it bit by bit, there will be a lot of trouble. Therefore, they are putting in the minimum figure. They will not give any answer why, but it is all part of then wonderful legislation which, as in this Bill, is doing so much to wreck the country and bring us to the position we are in today.

Division No. 362.]
AYES.
[4.16 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Dumpleton, C. W
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Ede, Rt. Hon. d. C.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fairhurst, F.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Field, Captain W. J.
Irving, W. J.


Attewell, H. C.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Jay, D. P. T.


Austin, H. Lewis
Foot, M. M.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St Pancras, S. E.)


Barnes, Rt Hon. A J
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Barton, C.
Gibbins, J
Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)


Bechervaise, A E.
Gibson, C W
Keenan, W.


Binns, J.
Gilzean, A.
Kenyan, C


Blackburn, A. R
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
King, E. M


Blyton, W. R.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Kinley, J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)
Lavers, S.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gunter, R. J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Buchanan, G.
Guy, W. H.
Leonard, W.


Burke, W A
Hale, Leslie
Levy, B. W.


Champion, A. J
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Collins, V. J.
Hardy, E. A.
Lindgren, G. S.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N. W)
Harrison, J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Longden, F.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Herbison, Miss M.
Lyne, A. W.


Deer, G.
Hewitson, Captain M.
McAdam, W


Diamond, J
Hulman, P
McAllister, G.


Dobbie, W.
House, G.
McGhee, H G


Dodds, N N
Hoy, J
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W)
Mackay, R W G. (Hull, N. W.)

Mr. Drayson: I cannot let the House part with this Amendment without making some protest on behalf of the numbers of my constituents who will be affected by this limitation to 25 miles. My constituency covers the Craven country of Yorkshire, where in many cases the distances are over 25 miles. In the southern part of the constituency the road hauliers go into the West Riding industrial areas, and to the industrial towns of North,' Lancashire, and their average journey would be 30 or 40 miles. What has surprised me in this discussion is that no hon. Members on the other side seem to have the same problems in their constituencies as we on this side are faced with in ours. It seems to me that they take no real interest in what the ordinary men and women—apart from the block votes they get from the trade unions—are thinking. The Minister himself seldom takes part in any of these discussions. I should like to hear his views tonight on this Lords Amendment. On every occasion he turns to his Parliamentary Secretary to get him out of his difficulties, and as he sits there, hour after hour, he is terrified even of nodding his head lest it should seem he is nodding agreement. I should like to hear the Minister's own views on this Amendment.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 66.

McLeavy, F
Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Mallalieu, J. P. W
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Mann, Mrs J.
Randall, H. E.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Mayhew, C P
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Tiffany, S


Mellish, R. J.
Robens, A.
Tolley, L.


Middleton, Mrs. L
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Mitchison, G. R.
Sargood, R
Wallace, H W (Walthamstow, E.)


Monslow, W
Scollan, T.
Weitzman, D.


Morris, Lt.-Col. H (Sheffield, C)
Segal, Dr S
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Moyle, A
Sharp, Granville
West, D. G.


Nally, W
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Nichol, Mrs. M E (Bradford, N)
Shawcross, Rt Hn. Sir H (St. Helens)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Nicholls, H R (Stratford)
Shurmer, P.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Oliver, G. H
Skeffington, A. M.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingreve)


Orbach, M.
Smith, S. H (Hull, S. W)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Willis, E.


Palmer, A. M. F
Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Pargiter, G. A.
Sparks, J. A.
Wise, Major F. J


Parkin, B. T.
Strauss, G R. (Lambeth, N)
Woodburn, A


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Stross, Dr. B
Wvatt W.


Pearson, A.
Stubbs, A. E.
Yates, V. F.


Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Swingler, S.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Symonds, A. L.
Zilliacus, K


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)



Price, M. Philips
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pritt, D. N
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) NOES.
Mr. Michael Stewart and




Mr. Simmons.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Raikes, H. V.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W
Ramsay, Major S.


Baldwin, A. E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Law, Rt. Hon. R K
Spearman, A. C- M.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Bossom, A. C.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Sutcliffe, H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)


Byers, Frank
Low, Brig. A. R. W
Teeling, William


Clarke, Col. R. S
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S
Touche, G. C.


Darling, Sir W. Y
Marples, A. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Digby, S. W
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wadsworth, G.


Dower, Lt.-Col A. V G (Penrith)
Mellor, Sir J.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Drayson, G. B
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Elliot, Rt Hon. Walter
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fox, Sir G.
Nicholson, G.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fraser, H. C P. (Stone)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Noble, Comdr. A H. P
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
York, C.


Grimston, R V
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.



Hare, Hon. J. H (Woodbridge)
Pitman, I. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hogg, Hon Q.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.

CLAUSE 40.—(Notices of acquisition.)

Lords Amendment, in page 49, line 27, at end insert:
(6) In any proceeding under this Section before the arbitration tribunal established under Part VIII of this Act the burden of proof that an undertaking is such an undertaking as is specified in the last preceding Section shall be upon the person contending that the undertaking is such an undertaking.

The Lords did not insist on the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:

In page 49, line 27, at end insert:
(6) In any proceeding under this Section before the arbitration tribunal established under Part VIII of this Act the obligation of giving to the tribunal all information in his power as to the manner in which the undertaking or the relevant part thereof was carried on during the period mentioned in paragraph

(a) of Subsection one of Section thirty-nine shall rest on the person on whom the notice of acquisition has been served and provided that such obligation has been duly performed the burden of proof that the undertaking is such an undertaking as is specified in Section thirty-nine shall be placed upon the person contending that the undertaking is such an undertaking.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This issue has been argued at great length in legal terms in another place, and I propose now to put the matter before the House in the practical setting which it occupies in the Bill. It is obviously wrong that one haulier, who has kept accurate records is to be brought within this Bill, while another haulier, who has probably been inaccurate or careless, is


being left outside the Bill. That is what this Amendment would ultimately bring about. Therefore, from the point of practical equity, I do not think that the House can possibly acept this Amendment.
What is the question at issue? Where the records are not complete, it becomes a matter of inference and judgment. If a haulier maintains proper and correct records there will be no difficulty at all in establishing whether he comes within the test or not. It is only when these records are absent that the difficulty arises. The arbitration tribunal under Part VIII of the Bill is, therefore, invoked for the purpose of deciding whether a haulier is within or without the test if the records are available, and in my view there is nothing unfair under procedure of this description, because an independent tribunal or an independent chairman of a tribunal, in those circumstances, I am confident, would endeavour to do the fair thing and arrive at the correct facts. But this Amendment imposes upon the Commission the onus of proof if the information is not available. The Commission cannot possibly have that information. It is only the haulier who has carried out those contracts that are in question who can possess the necessary information. That being the case, the Commission cannot possibly have the information of the past business of an individual. I do not consider that all the legal argumentation in another place can affect the facts of this situation. It is for that reason that I have found myself unable to accept the Amendment, and, whilst my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, no doubt, will be only too happy to deal with any legal points, I lay before the House the practical issue, which I believe is unanswerable.

4.30 a.m.

Mr. P. Thorneyeroft: If I may say so without any disrespect, the Minister was wise to take this matter into his own hands for, having studied the legal arguments advanced by the legal advisers of the Government in various places—almost every argument has been tried, found wanting and eventually abandoned—it was perhaps better for him to put in the short practical point, rather than get into the maze of legalistic arguments and legal niceties with which the Solicitor-General tried to

persuade us on the last occasion. This is the best point they have put forward so far. The point, shortly, was that one road haulier might have kept very accurate records—I assume, for the purposes of argument, a man who, on his records, was found to be a long-distance haulier—and it would operate against him that he had kept such accurate records, and someone who had kept less accurate records would conceivably get away with it. There might be some substance in that point; I would concede that. What we are concerned with here is not the amount of evidence in any particular case, but on whom the burden should rest in proving a case. That is the real point. It is true that the tribunal might find that a particular road haulier had rather inaccurate accounts but that would operate in the tribunal's mind somewhat against that particular haulier. It would operate in favour of the man who was debating the claim to take over that haulier. So that would not be altogether to his advantage. And it might not be to the advantage of the haulier to arrive before the tribunal without records at all, even with the onus of proof as laid down.
I very much hope that the learned Solicitor-General will intervene in this discussion because this is to some extent a legal point. It is a very commonsense point as well, and it is indeed a very simple one. It is that it lies upon a man who asserts a fact to prove it. That is one of the most elementary principles. That is why I find no difficulty in arguing it. The arguments advanced by the learned Solicitor-General, and in another place, have been quite extraordinary.
The first argument which I remember being advanced was that it was hardly a case of a tribunal deciding a dispute at all. This, it was said, was not a matter of two parties coming along with a dispute between them to be settled. It was something quite different. None of us could understand why it was quite different, until the Law Officers hit upon a different point and said the Commission had no option under this Clause, and had to take over every concern. But then they found that there was an option; they found that the Government, unknown to them, had introduced an option, into the Bill whether the Commission took over a concern or not. For all practical purposes that argument was abandoned.
Then the learned Solicitor-General had a sort of second string to his bow, though I am afraid the Lord Chancellor did not understand or accept his point. He said that the Transport Tribunal was in a better position to inquire into the facts than the Commission. That is what he said on the last occasion. No one has ever understood quite what he meant, because, of course, it never was the job of the Transport Tribunal to go out with a lot of detectives and inquire into these matters. It was the job of the Commission to get discovery of documents and to get the cards face upwards on the table and, having done that, to establish its case before the tribunal. Perhaps the learned Solicitor-General will give us some help by elaborating this in his speech this morning.
Finally came what I think is the most despicable point made. It was suggested that these road hauliers knew all the facts and would try to conceal, distort, or even destroy, the evidence. I hope the learned Solicitor-General will take the opportunity this morning to withdraw that suggestion on behalf of the Government, because I think it was one which it would be wholly unworthy of any Government to put forward. That is the sort of argument put forward in the criminal courts, and not against a man carrying on a perfectly reputable business and being of some service to the community. It is true that there are certain classes of criminals who under the criminal code of this country have the onus of proof put upon them. As, for instance, the case cited on the last occasion—the receiver of stolen goods, who, if he is found in the possession of goods recently stolen, has the onus of proving that he did not know that they were stolen. Is it a part of the case of the Government that these road hauliers should be put into the same class as these criminals? I certainly do not think they ought to be; it is a perfectly wrong way to approach this matter.
Our case for this Amendment is a very simple one. We say that these men are in some danger of having their livelihood taken away. We say that the Government have laid down conditions under which they shall be taken away, and in due course Parliament will lay them down. Before that livelihood goes, we say that it is up to those who wish to take

them over to see whether they come within the limits laid down by Parliament, and unless such a case can be made out, these men ought to be left out. That is the case. It is a very elementary legal principle. It has been a well-established way of conducting our affairs in the courts of justice in this country.

Mr. The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): indicated dissent.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Attorney-General shakes his head, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has very peculiar views about the law courts and the Executive which he has not hesitated to express publicly outside this House. I cannot think of anything further removed than my conception of the legislature and the courts of justice and the sort of case which is generally put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think it is a case which shocks and revolts most members of his own profession.

Mr. McAdam: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to address the House with his back turned to the Chair.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Major Milner): I think it would be courteous and for the convenience of the House if the hon. Gentleman addressed the Chair.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I trust that I am in no sense inaudible. As I was saying, the ordinary principle that the onus of proof should rest upon the man who is trying to prove his case is so well established that there is no need for it to be abandoned in this case. These men have been doing a good job of work; even the Minister would admit that. They have committed no crime. At worst, they have fallen within the category of men whom Parliament will have decided shall be taken over by the Commission, but it should fall on those taking them over to establish that they should be so taken over. If they fail to establish that fact, let these respectable and honest citizens go about their business in a normal manner.

Mr. H. Strauss: I hope the Government have not said their last word on this particular Amendment, because it is a most extraordinary provision on which they are attempting to insist. If I


understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly—and I hope the Solicitor-General will make this clear in his reply—in resisting the Lords Amendment the Government are not content merely to leave obscure upon whom the onus will rest, but wish definitely to place it on the man to prove that his business is one which should not be taken over. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman wants the onus to be precisely the opposite of what it would be on ordinary legal principles. I would ask the House to look briefly at the scheme as laid down in these three Clauses. In Clause 39 the Commission are empowered to give a notice of acquisition if they are of opinion that certain facts are established. That opinion, as the subsequent Clause makes clear, may be a wrong opinion. Nevertheless, if they are of opinion that those facts are established, it is then-duty to give notice to take over the business. The next Clause provides for objections to the taking over to be considered by the tribunal, and it is clearly recognised that the opinion which may have been held may be a wrong opinion. I desire very much to understand what the Government's case is.—[Interruption.]—I wonder why the hon. Member makes incomprehensible remarks.

Mr. Cove: I said the hon. and learned Gentleman did not.

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to say something, why has he not the courtesy to get up? He should try to keep quiet if he is unable to understand what is taking place in the House. I am addressing those Members of the House, who, unlike the particular hon. Member, are capable of understanding an intelligent argument. The hon. Member mistakes rudeness for reason.
An issue of fact has to be determined by the tribunal and I am anxious to understand what the Government's case is. From the Solicitor-General's speech on the last occasion and from what I understood from the right hon. Gentleman tonight, the difficulty they had in mind was the difficulty of the Commission in establishing the facts in certain cases, which facts might be better known to the owner of the business they were seeking to take over.
I would invite the attention of the House to the fact that the Commission will have the benefit of the statutory assumptions laid down in Clause 41. Clause 41 says the activities of an undertaking
shall be deemed to have consisted to a predominant extent of ordinary long-distance carriage
if certain conditions are satisfied. These assumptions will continue to apply. The only question is whether the Commission, having the benefit of all these assumptions, shall have the ordinary burden put upon them of proving the case which the tribunal has to decide under Clause 40.
In one respect in his speech tonight, the right hon. Gentleman has not quite fully understood the effect of the Amendment which he is inviting the House to reject. He has treated it as a case where advantage might be secured by somebody who had negligently or maliciously lost or destroyed or failed to keep documents—but that is not the effect of the Lords Amendment. If the House will be good enough to look at it. The Lords Amendment says quite clearly:
In any proceeding under this Section before the arbitration tribunal established under Part VIII of this Act the obligation of giving to the tribunal all information in his power as to the manner in which the undertaking or the relevant part thereof was carried on during the period mentioned…shall rest on the person on whom the notice of acquisition has been served.
It speaks of all the information. That goes far beyond documentary evidence. If the documents were lost or inadequately kept it would still be incumbent on the man whose business is sought to be taken over, to give information. He can only get the benefit of the Lords Amendment
provided that such obligation has been duly performed.
It is only where he has given all the information in his power—an obligation which would still remain his though he had not got the documents—that he gets the benefit of the onus of proof being on the Commission.

Mr. Cove: Now we understand.

4.45 a.m.

Mr. Strauss: I am delighted that even the most foolish have grasped that essential fact. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) is interrupting. He at least has great


knowledge of our legal system. He at least knows the effect of overthrowing the ordinary system of the onus of proof—and, if it is going to be done, it should only be done for good reasons. I have asked the House to consider that there is no good reason in the present case for doing away with the ordinary onus of proof. I hope the hon. and learned Solicitor-General will address his mind, in answering this Debate, both to the change in the Lords Amendment that we are considering on this occasion from that which we considered on the last occasion, and the fact that the presumption in Clause 41 will remain whether the Lords Amendment is accepted or not, and that he will give some good reason why in these circumstances we should abandon the ordinary principles of law.

Mr. Nield: The Amendment which the House is asked to consider, surely, raises a most important principle. The Minister, in his opening speech, regarded the matter rather from a practical angle and I wish to address the House for a very short time on the legal and the equitable angles. Where it is proposed that the Commission shall take over the business of the operator and that operator objects on the grounds that he is exempt, the question is, must the Commission prove that their action, in taking the business over, is right, or is the burden of proof upon the operator to show that he is entitled to be exempted? The House will appreciate that where a dispute such as this arises the matter goes before the Transport Arbitration Tribunal to be established under Clause 104. It is not unimportant to notice that by a specific Clause in the Bill the tribunal is a court of record and rules for its operations may be laid down by the Lord Chancellor.
But I feel that the House would not wish to part with this Bill before deciding one way or the other who is to bear the onus in the sort of dispute to which I have referred. May I look at the legal aspect of the matter first, and quite shortly because, as certain of my hon. Friends have pointed out, it is a very elementary principle of the law that he who asserts must prove, or, to put it in another way, that the burden of proof rests upon the party who substantively asserts the affirmative of the issue. Now, as has been said, in Clause 39, before the Commission can act at all, it must be of

the opinion that the business is one to be taken over, in other words, the Commission must substantively assert the affirmative of the issue, that it must be taken over. In that event, the ordinary law is that they must prove their case. That is the legal aspect of the matter, in my respectful submission. But I would add this. The chief argument against what I have said is, I think, that the information will be in the possession of the operator and might be difficult to be obtained by the Commission. But, as the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) pointed out, the Lords Amendment was so drafted that it is only when full information is forthcoming from the operator that the onus of proof is put on the Commission. On the equitable side, I would urge the House to say that, where a man's business is in danger of being taken over against his will, it is right and equitable that those who seek to take it over should prove the righteousness of what they seek to do.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): My right hon. Friend made a very gallant attempt, which seemed to evoke the applause of the House to lift this matter above legal controversy. His attempt was not supported by hon. Gentlemen who first spoke on the Opposition benches. The hon. Member opposite, apparently, so far as I could follow, spoke in complete ignorance of the fact that we were no longer discussing the previous Amendment. He proceeded to retail, one after the other, his imperfect recollection of the arguments I sought to adduce in answering the previous Amendment. I do not know whether he had had an opportunity of looking at the Order Paper. If he finds he has time next week he will see that the Amendment we are now discussing, is not the same Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentlemen who followed were at least conscious of that. They proceeded on the well-worn path, constantly trotting out that the onus lies on the person who makes the assertion. That is, in general, true. But if they look at "Taylor on Evidence," they will find a well-recognised exception to the general rule. It is the exception of which we seek to avail ourselves for this purpose. If I might read a short passage on Taylor, they will see that it is no revolutionary doctrine on my part when I


remind the House that when facts are particularly within the knowledge of one of the parties, the onus is on him to prove or disprove an assertion.
In several of the exceptions above given, the legislature has adopted the principle which the Common Law also recognises and which here may be noticed as the second exception to the general rule that the burden of proof lies on the party who substantially alleges the affirmative.
The exception is this: that where the subject matter of the allegation lies peculiarly within the knowledge of one of the parties that party must prove it whether it be of an. affirmative or negative character and even though there be a presumption of law in his favour.
If I can regard that particular chimera as being dispelled, I will go into the actual Clause. The arguments which I put forward, and which were referred to by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) were similar to those which prevailed in another place. The Amendment they were designed to resist has been abandoned. What has been substituted is really no better than the Amendment itself. The Amendment was objectionable we thought because it sought to place on the Commission, in circumstances in which the Commission would not have the necessary knowledge, the onus of collecting evidence. The attempt has been abandoned. But no one except the undertaker can know whether he has kept back that information. So really the new Amendment is exactly the same type, the same genus of the old, and has the same vice. The information is in the possession of the undertaker and it is easy for him to disclose the evidence if he wishes to do so. Therefore, the onus should be upon him to prove what is necessary to satisfy the two tests propounded by Clause 41. We think it is fair and reasonable and not putting an unfair burden on him because he has in his possession the evidence by which the facts can be established or contraverted. So this Amendment is no improvement and I ask the House to reject it.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The Solicitor-General is now doing exactly what the right hon. Gentleman sincerely hoped he would not do by trying to suggest that road hauliers will not produce the full evidence available to them before the Commission.

The Solicitor-General: That is a most. astonishing suggestion. I hope the hon.

and gallant Member does not mean it. When one has a large number of road hauliers, the great majority of whom are strictly honourable men, it does not follow that there will not be some who do not come up to that high standard of conduct just as in every other walk of life. It is not a question of hauliers or anyone else, and to try to misrepresent me as having made accusations of criminal conduct is to make a complete travesty of what I have said or what any Government spokesman has said, and if there is a question of withdrawing I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will think right to withdraw it.

Mr. H. Strauss: The Solicitor-General has said that the vice of the Lords Amendment was that it would still put the onus on the Commission to prove that the man had kept something back, but surely he does not mean to say that. The Amendment says:
provided that such obligation has been duly performed.
Surely, that will be for the tribunal to decide and they will be at liberty to say that this obligation has not been discharged notwithstanding that no nondisclosure has been proved.

The Solicitor-General: Unless the Commission can show that something has been kept back then the onus rests on the Commission. Therefore we are very much back in the position as before, and for all those reasons we say we have framed this Clause on the right lines. We say in Clause 41 that two tests shall be applied. They shall be applied in regard to all the circumstances. The tests are designed to ascertain whether a haulage undertaking is predominantly engaged on long distance haulage. If those tests do not give an answer, or leave the tribunal in doubt, the tribunal has to do the best in the circumstances. In dealing with the particular problem, in giving a wide discretion, in that sense we have come nearest to doing justice between the parties, and more justice is being done than in the two Amendments. For those reasons, I ask the House to say that this second Amendment is no better than the first.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I do not like this quotation from "Taylor on Evidence," and I would like to know whether the Lord Advocate has been consulted


because it is certainly contrary to the general practice of evidence in Scotland.

5.0 a.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to deal with the points which the Solicitor-General has been good enough to put to the House in support of the Government's position, and to start with the conclusion he drew from his remarks that the Bill as it exists is better than the Amendment before the House. I should like to give a summary of the provisions of the Bill as it exists, and in order that there may be no question about the summary being fair to the Government, may I put it in the words of the Government spokesman in another place? The Lord Chancellor said:
We put it in quite deliberately because we felt this difficulty, and we said in effect"—
I ask the House to note the next words—
Provided that, if the tribunal have not enough information, you must do the best you can on the information you have got.
That is, you must make the decision as to a man's livelihood, and, if necessary, take it away from him, without having enough information to deal with the issue in question. That is the Lord Chancellor's summary of the Bill as it stands. How any lawyer could define that as a basis for taking away a man's business and livelihood I cannot imagine, and I do not suppose for a moment that the Lord Chancellor summarised the Bill unfavourably for his own side. That is the Solicitor-General's first point, that that is an excellent Measure on which the livelihood of these people should be jeopardised. He then proceeds to support that argument by a quotation from "Taylor on Evidence" with which we are all very familiar, because it is the same quotation as the Lord Chancellor made in another place, only a few lines away from the peculiar passage I have just quoted.

Mr. Cove: Can we have the Lord Chancellor here?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member must really try to control himself or pluck up enough courage to speak. I know how difficult it is for him at this hour of the morning to summon up any courage of any kind. When he does, we shall be only too glad to hear him, and a large number of my hon. Friends will

be glad to answer him. I have not the least hope that that will arouse his dormant, sleepy, and obviously somnolent courage, but with that invitation to him I will leave his irrelevent interruption for the moment. When I was interrupted I was dealing with the quotation which the Solicitor-General had made. It is an argument that in certain cases the onus lies on a person in whose knowledge the facts peculiarly are. If the Solicitor-General had taken the trouble to look up the authorities for that—I know how busy he is—he would have found that it rests primarily on a judgment by Lord Ellen-borough about 1806, and the type of case to which he refers is that in which a constituent of the offence is the allegation that somebody has been doing something without a licence or permit, or something of that kind. In that class of cases the onus rests on him to show that he had taken out a permit.
But the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, of course, does not let this legal doctrine rest with Lord Ellenborough or any of his founders; but he goes on to apply it to circumstances where the Commission have set out to satisfy the tribunal, by one means or another, that the 51 per cent. is either the weight carried or the receipts of a business from journeys of over 40 miles and so outside the 25 miles radius. Applying the argument to facts of this kind is just the same as saying, "Well, in any case of slander the onus must be on the defendant, because he is the person who knows better than anyone else whether he has spoken the words." Really, to carry that argument, which was based on entirely different circumstances of very different facts, to facts where the very Statute itself lays down what is to be the matter on which the tribunal have to be satisfied, is, I respectfully say to the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, and to anyone who takes the same view, entirely outside his own quotation and baseless as a matter of law.
Now I come to the question of the practical matter. At the moment, there are certain obligations to keep records. I do not think it was unreasonable, as was at first suggested, that, with these records being available—in some cases it would be better than others—the Commission should assume the onus and the burden


of proof, and then should be able to get this discovery of the records in the ordinary way. As the hon. and learned Solicitor-General has pointed out, in this Amendment we have gone far beyond that. We are prepared that the road haulier should assume a far stiffer obligation than would be the case in the ordinary way. It really is a trifle hard that whenever in these Amendments we have taken a less severe line, whenever we have attempted to make a compromise, it has never been received, and all that has been said is, "Well, of course, this is an inconsistency, and your last argument must be wrong." I do say to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the time is very shortly coming when, if they are going to get co-operation from the other sections of the country—as they sometimes say they want—instead of merely exhibiting hatred of another class, as they have done, they will have to be ready to accept compromise when it is offered to them, or it will be much the worse for them. When we hear the next shrieks about the crisis taking the place of the complacency, hon. Gentlemen opposite will understand what I am saying with full knowledge.
With regard to the practical attitude, this Amendment is saying, first of all, that—I draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the wording—
the obligation of giving to the tribunal all information in his power…6hall rest on the person on whom the notice of acquisition has been served.
That is, it rests on the hauliers The haulier has to give all information in his power. I cannot see why the hon. and learned Gentleman should attempt to minimise that fact. If that is done, the burden of proof shifts. It is not merely a question of discovering information, but of giving all the information in his power. I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the original argument put forward in another place did not rest on the question from "Taylor on Evidence." The hon. and learned Gentleman has obviously studied this as carefully as I have, and he will remember that the Lord Chancellor said that if he went into an exhibition of paintings, there could be no onus of proof when he distinguished between a false Velasquez and a genuine, nor when he, as a shepherd, attempted to

distinguish between the sheep and the goats. Those who have read the OFFICIAL REPORTS of another place will know the issue there and that which has been before this House tonight. The simple problem is that the Commission wants to get possession of the businesses of the road hauliers, and the problem, furthermore, is, are we to do that fairly in accord with the standards of English justice and jurisprudence, or merely because those which are with the central Government are to be given an unfair advantage? That is the issue before us, and I should have thought—although heaven knows there is enough to dash my hopes—that there was only one answer from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove).

Mr. Pritt: The right hon. and learned Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) is responsible for my rising at this hour. I would not have done so, but he should really have known better than to have spoken as he has done. The burden of proof is important but, as many juries have stated, when one has the facts, the burden of proof ceases to be of much importance. If the haulier has all the information, and the Commission has practically none, then the burden of proof is so regulated that the haulier has to bring his information out, and the rest is comparatively simple. There will be very few cases in which there will be any real doubt about the facts and, therefore, few cases where the burden of proof will be of much importance at that stage. But we are told that the Commission is going to take a man's business away on the best information that can be obtained. Who, but a fool, ever decided any case except on the best information which could be got? I remain completely unfrightened because the Lord Chancellor has said that the best information is to be used. If the haulier has his books in proper order, we shall have the right information, and if he has not kept his books properly, the worse for him. People should take the trouble to keep their books accurately.
5.15 a.m.
Then, of all things, the right hon. and learned Gentleman proceeds to take the rule, which we all know very well in the courts, where the matter is practically within the knowledge of one party. Then the burden of proof generally would lie


on him. He proceeded to go back to Lord Ellenborough and suggested that that rule, which rests almost entirely on cases where the party on whom the burden of proof is thrown has done something wrong, failed to have a licence or something of that sort. Every lawyer practising within the courts knows that was the origin of the rule but it is not its limit or practical application today. It is welcomed by lawyers as a refreshing piece of common sense and applied universally. Judges have given it a peculiarly wide application in decisions recently. But suppose it was not the law; suppose the haulier was wrong and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right. We axe legislating. One of the functions of legislation is to alter the law and we would make it the law, a very reasonable and fair-minded piece of common sense as I suggest this is.
But the right hon. and learned Gentleman was rash at ten past five this morning when he burst into synthetic thunder and said what will happen to the Labour Party if it is not supported by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. There has been comment on what' has been said on the Amendment by noble Lords. Intelligent lawyers have often found their way into the House of Lords because they are intelligent lawyers and not because their great grandfathers kept a brewery. If we accept the arguments advanced from the benches opposite, we shall be creating a burden of extra trouble. I do not wonder that the Government want to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Raikes: The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) has seen fit to chastise my right hon. and learned Friend. In that form of chastisement neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor any other Member on this side of the House is likely to find that there is a great deal that is wrong. My right hon. and learned Friend started by saying that, with regard to the burden of proof, as many judges had pointed out, once the full facts and information were at the disposal of the court, the burden of proof became comparatively unimportant. That I think was his statement. I hope he will interrupt me at this stage if I have misrepresented him in any way. I find it very difficult to understand why the hon. and

learned Gentleman has objected to the Amendment which we are now discussing because in that Amendment, first and foremost, those important facts and information to which he refers have to be elicited before the burden of proof is shifted from the haulier to the Commission and secondly, as presumably he is aware, already in Clause 51 the undertaker himself is compelled under penalty to give information and if he does not give the information that becomes an offence. If it is an offence not to give the information, if it is also laid down in this Amendment that until that information is given the burden of proof is not changed, the very thing that the hon. and learned Gentleman asked for is obtained before the burden of proof is shifted.
If that is the best hon. Members can do in support of the Government at this early hour of the morning, heaven help them when morning has drifted on towards afternoon. I have only two other observations which I wish to make. I am glad that the learned Solicitor-General said quite definitely that he regarded the vast majority of road hauliers as being honourable and straightforward men. He put it a little more happily than it was put in the speech made by the Lord Chancellor in another place. At the same time, I think he quite unwittingly forgot one thing, for while I entirely agree with him that the records of the vast majority show these men as being honest and straight, he would no doubt agree that you might have an odd black sheep among them. Black sheep are found in some strange places in these days. If that is so, by insisting that the onus of proof is kept where he has placed it by opposing this Amendment, he does in point of fact make every one of these road hauliers either a potential criminal, or puts him in law on a level, so far as proof is concerned, with a receiver of stolen property. So, however kind he may be to the vast majority, unless the burden of proof is transferred, after the preliminaries laid down in this Amendment, to the Commission, road hauliers fighting for their livelihood are put into the most invidious position of any class of men in this country. For my part, I shall very strongly support this Amendment, and I shall realise, as I have realised more than once tonight, that the


Party opposite is not a party of progress but a party of black reaction.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), if he will forgive my saying so, always presents something of a paradox, at least to me. When I hear him arguing in the law courts, when my modest practice enables me to penetrate into those tribunals where he makes an honest living, I wonder how it can possibly be that anyone so obviously competent to present a legal argument can be the irresponsible, specious, cheap and trashy performer whom we all know. On the other hand, when I hear him in the House, I often wonder how it is that such an irresponsible cheap and trashy performer here should ever be able to earn a living in the courts.

Mr. Pritt: The solution might be that my politics are as good as my law.

Mr. Hogg: On this occasion, the hon. and learned Member did, it seemed to me, solve some of my difficulties, because we heard him arguing a point legalistically with what I can only describe as his political manner. It seemed to me that he thereby betrayed himself considerably. This is not a lawyer's point, or at any rate it ought not to be. It seems to me to be a plain matter of common equity. There are Members on the other side of the House who desire to take over the transport of this country for reasons which probably are well-known. There are hon. Members on this side of the House who do not wish it to be taken over for reasons, in which we believe no less sincerely, but I should have thought that whether we adopted one set of principles or the other, we should all of us agree that a person's livelihood should not be taken away until we were certain of the facts.
The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith takes a decidedly different view. He maintains that the road haulier, notwithstanding the fact that he has committed no crime, notwithstanding the fact that he has carried on his business honestly and honourably and has done nothing wrong either in law or in conscience, has to have his living taken away from him unless he can positively satisfy the test laid down by the Government. In other words, the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith rather crudely and to me somewhat

naively admitted that he was going to take away a man's livelihood because he did not keep adequate books of accounts. That is what he said. That, of course, is a good party line for the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith to take—that a man has committed an injustice unless he can positively prove that no wrong ought to be committed against him. I hardly think, however, that that will be the attitude of the Government. It is certainly not the party line of the Labour Party, who I hope will dissociate themselves from the hon. and learned Member and say that they will be no parties to the taking away of a man's livelihood unless he is prepared to prove positively that the facts conform to certain principles.

Mr. Maclay: Up to now I have preserved a discreet silence. We have heard a long argument from the Government, and it has been conducted solely by members of the learned profession. I know that it is very dangerous for one who is not a member of that profession to enter into the argument, especially at this early hour of the morning. However, I want to comment on the fact that if the Government's case means anything, it ought to be applied to every similar circumstance in their other Bills. I may be wrong, for this is a difficult argument to follow, but it seems to me that the Government are arguing that the onus of proof must rest on the people who have the information available. If that is right, let them put it into practice in some other cases. What about the public local inquiries into schemes prepared by the Government about which they have acknowledged they have the information? Let the Government, when they go to a local government inquiry to prove their case, apply this principle and submit themselves to cross-examination. Will they apply this argument which they have so strongly argued here to public local inquiries? I know it is rather late to expect any compromise from the Government, but I think the case I have made is perfectly sound, and unless some hon. and learned Member opposite will tell me that I am talking nonsense and that I have completely misunderstood the matter, I will believe I am right in saying that the Government are preaching one thing in one respect and quite another in similar circumstances.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Division No. 363.]
AYES.
[5.28 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Hughes, H D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Robens, A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Irving, W. J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Jeger, Dr S. W. (St Pancras, S E.)
Sargood, R


Attewell, H. C.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Scollan, T.


Austin, H. Lewis
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Segal, Dr. S.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Keenan, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Barton, C.
Kenyon, C
Sharp, Granville


Bechervaise, A. E.
King, E. M
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Binns, J
Kinley, J
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Blackburn, A. R
Lavert, S.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Blyton, W. R.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Skeffington, A M,


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Lewis, A. W J. (Upton)
Smith, S. H (Hull, S. W)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Lindgren, G. S.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Bramall, E. A
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Buchanan, G.
Longdon, F.
Sparks, J. A.


Burke, W. A
Lyne, A W
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E)


Champion, A J
McAdam, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Collins, V. J.
McAllister, G
Stross, Dr. B.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N. W)
McGhee, H G
Swingler, S.


Cove, W. G.
Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Symonds, A. L.


Deer, G.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Dobbie, W.
Mann Mrs. J
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dodds, N N
Mayhew, C P
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Fairhurst, F.
Mitchison, G. R.
Tiffany, S


Field, Captain W. J
Monslow, W
Tolley, L.


Foot, M. M
Morris, Lt. -Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E)


Gibbins, J
Moyle, A.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Gibson, C. W
Nally, W
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Gilzean, A.
Nichol, Mrs M E. (Bradford, N.)
West, D. G.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Nicholls, H R (Stratford)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Gunter, R. J
Orbach, M.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Guy, W. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, J. L, (Kelvingrove)


Hale, Leslie
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Pargiter, G. A.
Willis. E


Hardy, E. A.
Parkin, B. T.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Harrison, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wise, Major F. J


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F
Woodburn, A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Wyatt W.


Hewitson, Captain M.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Yates, V. F.


Holman, P
Price, M. Philips
Younger, Hon Kenneth


House, G
Pritt, D. N.
Zilliacus, K.


Hoy, J.
Proctor, W. T.



Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pursey, Cmdr H
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ranger, J
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons




NOES.


Assheton, Rt. Hon R
Grimston, R. V.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baldwin, A. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Raikes, H. V.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Bossom, A. C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universites)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S)


Byers, Frank
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Touche, G. C


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Vane, W. M. F


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E
Maclay, Hon. J. S
Wadsworth, G


Darling, Sir W. Y
Marples, A. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Digby, S. W
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A V G. (Penrith)
Mellor, Sir J.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Drayson, G. B.
Morrison, Maj J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Drewe, C
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj C E
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Nield, B. (Chester)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fox, Sir G.
Noble, Comdr A. H. P
York, C.


Fraser, H. C P. (Stone)
Orr-Ewing, I. L



Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P M
Peto, Brig. C. H M
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Pitman, I J
Commander Agnew and




Major Ramsay.

The House divided: Ayes, Noes, 60.

CLAUSE 58.—(Application of Road and Rail Traffic Act. I933, to Commission.)

Lords Amendment, in page 74, line 4, at end, insert:
(c) This section shall not apply to any vehicle used for the carriage of any goods for distances not exceeding eighty miles or for the carriage for any distance of any of the goods specified in provisos (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of section fifty-two.

The Lords did not insist on the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:

Page 74, line 4, at end, insert:
(c) If on a complaint made by the holders of an A or B licence to the licensing authority that the Commission, in the exercise of their function of providing transport service for the carriage of goods by road, not being ordinary long-distance carriage, are competing unfairly against the aggrieved licence holders by seeking to provide more than a fair proportion of the facilities required, the licensing authority may, if it thinks fit, refer the matter with its report and recommendations to the Minister, who may make such order as in all the circumstances he may deem to be just, requiring if necessary the Commission to withdraw or alter such facilities.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I urge this for two reasons. One is that it is wrong in principle that the Commission, having a duty placed upon it by Parliament, should be directly or indirectly subject to another authority in regard to the services which they consider it necessary to perform. There is a further reason which I think may appeal even more to hon. Members opposite. This Amendment is wholly unnecessary for three reasons: the first is that it is contrary to the duty imposed on the Commission by the Bill to create a state of affairs, which they would drive the private haulier off the road. The second is that the individual licensee has a full remedy open to him, if as is feared by the Lords, the competition of the Commission against the licensee in his road haulage work should, in fact, become so serious as to drive the licensee off the road. The licensee can then go before the Transport Tribunal when the charges are being made and allege that they are being unfairly or improperly operated to the detriment of existing hauliers.

Mr. An Hon. Member: Would that include complaints about the unreasonable number of vehicles in operation?

Mr. Strauss: It would not matter how many were in operation. Unless the charges were lower than those charged by the private haulier because there is no competition unless charges are below those of competitors. The hon. Member must agree with that.
There is a third complete safeguard. If the hauliers felt that the Commission were doing something contrary to the obligations and duties put on them by the Bill and were competing and driving off the road the existing road hauliers, the Road Haulage Association would be able to go direct to the Minister and tell the Minister the facts, and the Minister would, in the national interests, be able to give the necessary direction to the Commission. The Commission would do nothing so wrong as to drive existing hauliers off the road but one does not accept that, there is in the Bill and in the charges structure of the Bill, ample opportunity for the hauliers to take the necessary remedies to put an end to such a state of affairs should they exist, which I maintain is exceedingly unlikely.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As morning approaches, the Government become more and more enthusiastic about the virtues of monopoly. Previously they said it was economically invaluable and now they say it is morally invaluable. We do not share the astonishing subservience to monopoly which seems to be the governing principle of the Minister and the Under-Secretary. Who could imagine, he said, that the Commission would do such a terrible thing as to drive the hauliers off the road? Besides, if it did, there are remedies. It really is not very difficult for a monopoly to try to squeeze others out of competition. It is not unknown in Government circles. I have seen the powerful Government Departments bullying the less powerful Government Departments and taking away their power. Monopoly is by no means perfect. That is why we wished for a defence of the private citizen who will have a very poor chance when this thing gets into action against the enormous monopoly. The Under-Secretary said it was desired to cover a very large portion of the field


If it is in any way interfered with, the bias of the Under-Secretary will be towards the monopoly and against the private citizen. The next argument the Under-Secretary used was this. He said that the Commission would not want to drive the hauliers off the road; that, if it did, the haulier would have a remedy because he could appear before a tribunal when the charges scheme was made.
5.45 a.m.
The hon. Gentleman was asked a question by my hon. Friend as to whether a complaint could be made against surplus vehicles as well as charges. The Under-Secretary said that that was entirely irrelevant. Unless the charges are cut, mere superfluity of vehicles would not make any difference. Would it not? Has the Minister never heard of the practice in many places of nursing a vehicle which one desires to squeeze out? [An HON. MEMBER: "That was under private enterprise."] He does not seem to realise that he is setting up a body which is going into trade and will have the motive, and according to him, the duty of making itself the supreme authority in transport. It will be subject to exactly the same set of stimuli that the worst private monopoly has ever been subject to, and, in addition, will have a powerful machine with legislative authority, in so far as the Under-Secretary can provide it. A terrible monopoly is being set up, and if one listens to some of the arguments it will have the law courts behind it as well.
It is clear that competition could be effected by an attack on carrying capacity as well as charges. I advance that contention to the House. The private hauliers are very much concerned about it and would certainly desire some protection. And lastly, says the Under-Secretary, if they were being so knocked about, what would be their remedy? Their organisation, which by this Bill has been amputated, cut down, and bullied in every way, its long-distance enterprise entirely removed from it, and very much reduced from what it was before—this organisation can come before whom? The Minister—the man who has set up this great machine and says:
The toad beneath the harrow knows, exactly where each point-prick goes, The butterfly upon the road, preaches contentment to that toad.
But this is worse. The private individual says, "This powerful machine is

grinding me under." The Minister says: "Grand; that is what I set it up to do. What are you complaining about?" That is what has been said all night. We might say, "You have voted us down time and again, and used your great majority to trample us down." "Splendid," says the Minister joyfully, "That is what we were elected to do; we had a mandate." That is what he will no doubt say.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman could not have read the Lords Amendment with which I am asking the House to disagree. In' that Amendment it is the Minister who is given the power to interfere.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: But really these dialectical tricks are scarcely worthy. This comes before the Minister in the course of an organised representation. The complaint made by the hauliers is, "We did our best to meet all possible objections." Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen say, "We did our best to ensure that the Minister would be there, but we certainly proposed it would be advanced as a non-statutory organisation wandering up, knocking at the Minister's door to be heard." But according to the proposals, on a complaint made by the hauliers to a licensing authority that the Commission was competing unfairly, the matter may be referred by the authority to the Minister. That is a very different thing from some powerful association of hauliers who have the right to complain equally of the things which the Minister in his wisdom sets out to do. We ask for a statutory procedure where a man may go as a right before the authorities in this country. After that the quarrel lies between the licensing authority and the Minister, not with the road hauliers organisation representing the private enterprise which it is the Minister's purpose to crush and extinguish.
We bring forward an Amendment, with which the only fault to be found as with our other Amendments, is that it does not oppose to the other place a blunt, uncompromising negative, but all that happens is that the Parliamentary Secretary says, "I cannot agree to this, I ask the House to reject this Amendment." Of course he has his majority and can do that, but he is certainly trespassing against the maxim that not only must justice be done but that


justice must appear to be done. None of us in any private association, faced with alternatives such as that which would enable us to go before the licensing authority, make our complaint, and then ask the licensing authority to go before the Minister, or, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, for the private association to go forward—none of us would hesitate which to choose between the statutory control of the one and the bush-ranging approach of the other. All this, he says, is unnecessary because this monopoly is so pure, so good, so true, has such high ideals. All we can do is to answer in the words of Mr. Disraeli when he was approached by someone who said, "Mr. Gladstone, I believe," and retorted, "Sir, if you believe that you would believe anything." That is our answer to the Minister's contention that nobody would do anything wrong and therefore there is no purpose in guarding against it.

Mr. Raikes: I think the Minister's arguments cancelled each other out. He said it was wrong in principle for the Commission to be subject to another authority. Later he said the road hauliers' organisation would have direct access to the Minister. It is obvious that in the Minister's own mind he does not regard the road hauliers' organisation going to the Minister as being nearly as powerful as the road hauliers having the right, through the licensing authority, to approach the Minister, because if he did think so, he would not have maintained that while the road hauliers' organisation has direct access to the Minister, nevertheless the Commission is not subject to another authority. If the Amendment is carried, it does mean that another authority over and beyond the Commission would have the opportunity of examining unfair competition if it did take place. There is no need for me to play about with questions of the purity or non-purity of monopolies. I have known hon. Members on the other side deal with monopolies in more eloquent language than I can use at this hour of the morning. But because it is a public monopoly instead of a private one, that does not make it any more virtuous.
The Minister was below his usual form when he said that it was quite sufficient if the licensing authority had their remedy in regard to the rate structure. My right

hon. and gallant Friend dealt with that. But, after all, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will remember the early days after the first World War, and they will both remember that the routes of the buses in London were very much overcrowded. What were known as "pirate" buses—buses that used to go along taking the cream of good routes—made it extremely difficult and awkward for companies to cover the routes. That was not a question of undercutting by rates; it was a question of undercutting by operating buses only in order to take large numbers of passengers as they appeared.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: That could hardly apply to goods vehicles, could it?

Mr. Raikes: Let the Parliamentary Secretary wait a moment, and he will see that I am going to develop the argument a little further. We shall see what the position would be in goods traffic. It would be this. As the matter stands, A and B licensees, if they want any additional vehicles at all in addition to those they already have, must go to the licensing authorities for permission to get additional vehicles. On the other hand, the Commission have none of those troubles to bother them. If the Commission decide for one reason or another that it would be an advantage in a certain area to have additional vehicles, they get those additional vehicles straight away. That is not all. When the time for the renewal of licences comes, the A and B licensees have to go before the licensing authorities to apply for licences for the same number of vehicles they have, apart from any additional vehicles they may wish to have.
Suppose that the Commission run unfair competition against the private road haulage vehicles. One cannot assume that the Commission, of necessity, will just not do that. Suppose in the course of a year or so after this thing has come into operation—this half-baked thing: if it does come into operation; but assume it does—there may be a larger number than before of vehicles run on certain routes by the Commission, which will affect the A and B licensees. When they go before the licensing authority for permission to use only their existing number of vehicles the licensing authority may then be compelled to say, "We are sorry, but in view


of the fact that now there are considerably more vehicles being operated by the Commission than a year ago we cannot, of necessity, even give you your present number of permitted vehicles."
Now, that could very easily happen. It would be unfair competition—a competition which would not touch the question of rates, but competition which could bitterly injure the road hauliers. If it should be said that it would be impossible for the Commission to adopt such an attitude because it would not be economical for the Commission to use a larger number of vehicles, I would reply it might well be that, in the long run, from the point of view of the public, it would be very far from economical to have that competition stamped out; but that, from the point of view of the Commission, in putting that extra number of vehicles in competition with their competitors, it might be economical in the long run. If this Amendment is rejected, it will be an incitement to the Commission to use all the worst forms of private monopoly in a public monopoly to destroy reasonable competition.

6.0. a.m.

Mr. Digby: I think there is no doubt that when the new scheme comes into effect there will be a great deal of competition between the road hauliers left operating on the roads in their restricted radii and the Commission as a whole, and there is also no doubt whatever that this Bill is completely lacking in provisions to prevent that competition from becoming unfair. I, therefore, welcome this Amendment, although I am not at all sure that it goes far enough. One is going to have one law for the rich monopoly of the Commission, and another for the small haulier. The Commission will have all the resources behind it; it will be rich, and able to switch its resources into one area or another, and yet be able to fulfil the condition that it must balance out its income and expenditure. It will not be bound by distance; its vehicles can be operated for one week on short distance work and, when the traffic is different in the following week, the same vehicles can be used on long distance traffic. The vehicles can change their operating centres; they can switch from Bristol to the north of England one week and in the next they can be back again, at Bristol.
That is one advantage, and another is that the executive is not obliged, when it wishes to place more vehicles on the road, to go to any licensing authority for permission to use those extra vehicles. The executive thus has an enormous advantage, and it may well be that the small haulier will find himself at a great disadvantage. The "cream" may have been skimmed off in his area, and he may have found that the locusts have passed his way. He will then seek the renewal of his licence, as he is bound to do. What happens to the small haulier then? He may very probably be faced with the argument that there is no need for him to operate any longer because so many vehicles have been operating on short distance work in that area. It will be very easy for the Commission to get him out of the way. But this is not all. He will not be able even to get the compensation given to those who are dispossessed under this Bill. The Commission, without this Amendment, can ruthlessly cut out such competition as may be left, and then turn round and refuse compensation to those cut out. I do appeal to the Minister, through the Parliamentary Secretary, to consider this aspect. It is something which is no mere alteration to the drafting of the Bill. It is a real safeguard, and it is needed.

Mr. Assheton: I am extremely disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary did not see his way to say that he would accept this most modest proposal from another place. We have really got to find some means of controlling these monopolies which are to be set up, and the very little control there will be over them is at the hands of the Minister We are often told by hon. Members opposite of the dangers of private monopoly, but this is nothing compared to the dangers of the great public monopoly. If private monopoly becomes too vast, the State can smash it. There is always that means, but when the monopoly is run and organised by the State, then nothing can stop it. We are told that the interests of the road haulier will be protected by the Tribunal. But, as has been so well pointed out earlier tonight, that is not the case at all. This Tribunal deals only with routes, but not with the volume of traffic at all. There is nothing in that argument This proposal which the House of Lords has


sent down to us is most modest. It is an attempt to compromise, a genuine effort by the other House to suggest something to which the Minister could agree. The whole matter is left in the hands of the Minister himself. I make a last appeal to him to see if he cannot accommodate the House of Lords in this Amendment and do at least some measure of justice to these small road hauliers.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The right hon. Gentleman might well have accepted this Amendment without injuring the Bill in any way. It was a fairly helpful Amendment

Division No. 364.]
AYES.
[6.7 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Roberts, A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Irving, W. J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Sargood, R


Attewell, H. C
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Scollan, T.


Austin, H Lewis
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Segal, Dr. S.


Barnes, Rt Hon. A. J
Keenan, W.
Shackleton, E A A.


Barton, C
Kenyan, C.
Sharp, Granville


Bechervaise, A E.
King, E. M
Shawcross, Rt Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens:


Binns, J.
Kinley, J.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Blackburn, A. R
Lavers, S.
Simmons, C. J.


Blyton, W. R
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Skefington, A M.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Lewis, A. W J. (Upton)
Smith, S. H (Hull, S. W.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Lindgren, G. S.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Bramall, E. A
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Buchanan, G
Longden, F
Sparks, J. A.


Burke, W A
Lyne, A. W.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Champion, A. J
McAdam, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Collins, V. J
McAllister, G.
Stross, Dr. B.


Corbet, Mrs F. K (Camb'well, N. W.)
McGhee, H G
Swingler, S.


Cove, W. G.
Mackay, R W. G (Hull, N. W)
Symonds, A. L.


Deer, G.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Diamond, J
Mann, Mrs. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dobbie, W.
Marsden, Capt. A
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mayhew, C P
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Dumpleton, C. W
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Fairhurst, F.
Mikardo, Ian
Tiffany, S.


Field, Captain W. J
Milchison, G. R.
Tolley, L.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Monslow, W.
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)


Gibbins, J
Morris, Lt.-Col. H (Sheffield, C.)
Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Gibson, C. W
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Gilzean, A.
Nally, W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)
West, D. G.


Greenwood, A. W J. (Heywood)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Gunter, R. J
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Guy, W. H.
Orbach, M.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Hale, Leslie
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hardy, E. A
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Harrison, J..
Parkin, B. T.
Willis, E.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Wise, Major F. J


Hewitson, Captain M.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Woodburn, A.


Holman, P.
Price, M. Philips
Wyatt, W.


House, G.
Pritt, D. N.
Yates, V. F.


Hoy, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H



Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ranger, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Hannan,




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Conant Maj. R. J. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A


Assheton, Rt. Hon R
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Grimston, R. V.


Baldwin, A. E.
Darling, Sir W. Y
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Beamish, Maj. T V. H.
Digby, S. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)
Dowar Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bossom, A. C
Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Byers, Frank
Fox, Sir G.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Clarke, Col. R. S
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Cliff[...] Brown, Lt.-Col G
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Mackeson, Brig. H. R

I can only think that whatever considered Amendment was put down on the Order Paper tonight, the right hon. Gentleman would not accept it. It is quite useless and a waste of the time of this House. I cannot but feel that the power of this large majority is being abused and that the smallest people can expect no justice.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 56.

Maclay, Hon. J S
Raikes, H. V.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J


Marples, A. E.
Sanderson, Sir F
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Spearman, A C. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Mellor, Sir J
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Nield, B. (Chester)
Thorneycroft, G. E P. (Monmouth)
York, C


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Touche, G. C.



Peto, Brig. C. H M
Vane, W. M. F
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pitman, I J.
Wadsworth, G.
Mr. Drewe and Major Ramsay.


Poole, OBS (Oswestry)
Ward, Hon G. R

Lords Amendment to Commons Amendment in lieu of Lords Amendment in page 106, line 8, disagreed to by this House: In line 4 of Clause (Arbitration Acts do not apply to proceedings before referees or boards of referees), leave out from "Service" to end of Clause, agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Assheton, Mr. Barnes, Mr. David Jones, Mr. McLeavy and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe; "Three be the quorum."—[Mr. Barnes.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated U. the Lords.

Orders of the Day — INDONESIA (SITUATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. R. J. Taylor.)

6.16 a.m.

Mr. Longden (Birmingham, Deritend): I am sorry at prolonging this stormy sitting, but I believe that this matter is of extreme and world importance. It is vital not only to our trade and commerce, important as those are, but also to world peace, and certainly to local national sovereignty. It has been announced that there has been a "cease fire" and an armistice, but that to me does not mean that this trouble is to be ended soon. Certainly the Eastern peoples, including the Indonesians, are not going to remain in the leading-strings of Dutch imperialism. Had our Government here three or four weeks ago adopted the attitude of last week the final aggressive attack by the Dutch on the Indonesians would never have taken place.
I am not a new convert to that attitude, and there are matters which I think ought to be recorded for future use. On 9th July I asked that this Question should be put on the Order Paper:

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention had been called to the serious clash between the Dutch Government and the Indonesian Republic, and in view of Britain's past relationship and commitments to both these countries if he will offer mediation.

That Question was rejected, and I think something might have come of it had the Foreign Secretary faced up to the situation then. The assumption in replies given to me by the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for War in December. February and March, was that we had no responsibility. Yet, even on 28th July, the "Daily Herald" was writing this in regard to the unhappy situation:
It was British troops who originally received the Japanese surrender in Java"—
and I stress this—
and it was with the help of British mediation that an apparently satisfactory agreement was made implementing Dominion status.

That I think was a correct statement from the "Daily Herald." Here is what the Foreign Secretary said at the Table of this House on 23rd July:
Ever since December, 1945, when the political adviser to the Supreme Allied Commander in South-East Asia was authorised to bring the parties together, we have continued our efforts to this end "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1947; Vol. 440, c. 12118—

through Lords Inverchapel and Killearn, and latterly through our Governor-Generals there. What has happened is that both the Indonesians and the British have been openly snubbed, and if they were snubbed then, they will certainly be snubbed tomorrow when the Indonesians will continue to fight for their rightful independence. We lost blood and wealth in eliminating the Japanese from these islands, and then we receive this snub. Even on 24th July, after the approach of our own Minister, quite clearly, we have this from Dr. Beel, the Dutch Prime Minister:
Arbitration must be ruled out.

That is pretty rich after the cost to this country and to the Indonesians arising from these attacks. It is "hands off," I suppose, for them, until, as now, the Dutch have commandeered enough territory


and strategic positions to bargain just as they wish in spite of all the armistices and "cease fire" orders under the sun. All that comes after the Cheribon Agreement, or the Linggadjati Agreement, as it is now called.

To summarise the position—the Dutch Navy has been blockading these islands; it has been arresting British and American trading ships; it has been denying commerce to the local people to sell sugar, tea, fats, rice, rubber, tin and many other useful commodities which the world and we ourselves would gladly receive in trade. It has caused considerable distress and anxiety and unemployment and waste in the Indonesian States, as the facts easily prove. All who subscribe to this imperialism of the Dutch and their policy are guilty—all of them. The breakdown between the two countries came as a result of more reasons than were mentioned last week by the Foreign Minister. It was not only the infamous joint police suggestion from the Dutch side, but it was the structure of the States themselves: it was the denial to the Indonesians of the right to be represented in foreign affairs; it was the Dutch Governor-General's presiding over the States' Council; it was the Dutch hand-picked representatives from Borneo who were to represent the backward peoples of Borneo on the Legislative Council of the Indonesian States.

It was rightly Britain's task under U.N.O. to liquidate the Japanese. They did that with the gallant help of the partisans. Now those partisans are having to fight for their own life, independence and sovereignty. I think it is right to say that neither U.N.O. nor Britain had a duty to train Dutch troops in this country and provide all manner of arms—lethal tools for the Dutch only. Ten thousand officers and men were trained in Britain in 1946, and also there are piles of American munitions in Singapore and Malaya with which to supply the Dutch, but not the Indonesians. Why should the Indonesians not have their own troops and munitions? If there were a ha'p'orth of justice they would have. Much less was it our duty as British to stand here without interfering, in face of the fact that the Dutch were using Japanese troops as spearheads against these people fighting for national

freedom. I could quote here quite a number of telegrams. In one case, after one battle, some 55 Japanese were found dead on the field.

This is what is happening in spite of our sacrifices. Added to all that, I have said so baldly, it seems to me that these telegrams sent by our Foreign Minister are calculated to maintain the status quo in that part of the world. We look at the map and see Britain, Holland and America splashed all over these tremendous islands, in which Britain could be lost, territorially speaking. They seem intent to command between them the rest of the world. Otherwise, why do we favour the Dutch against these militarily weaker people, the Indonesians. These Indonesians are are behind their leaders. Dr. Sjahrir, the ex-Premier, belongs to the outside world. The present Premier, Dr. Sjarifuddin is fighting inside his country. The President, Dr. Sukarno, begs U.N.O. to do something, as it is now belatedly doing.

After much blood and wealth has been wasted, the trades unions and the progressive world, are behind the Indonesians. The maritime transport groups in Holland are protesting and beginning to strike. Even during the British occupation of Indonesia, there were officers and men of the Dutch army who refused to embark for these islands, proving that what we now say has been the attitude of these gallant men in Holland. In Australia and New Zealand, dockers and railwaymen refused to handle Dutch goods and now the leaders of Pakistan and India are up against the violent situation which exists in that part of the world. After all the blood that has been spent, this is what we are now experiencing. It is good to work through the Security Council and to stop the training, and supply of munitions, late as it is. It is good to threaten sanctions, but I believe that we want to apply sanctions and see to it that the Dutch do not proceed with these despicable aggressions on a group of peaceful peoples fighting for bread and independence. That is why I agree with Molotov's statement. We may disagree with many things, but this we can agree with. I believe Molotov was right when, at the meeting of the Security Council, he said that we ought to ask both sides to withdraw to their original


borders, pending a just settlement. We do not want the Dutch commanding the situation as otherwise they would be. My last word is that I have never supported the imperialism of my own country and I would not support my country in backing the imperialism of any other country.

6.29 a.m.

Mr. Mikardo: I have only one minute in which to put a specific question to the Minister. The Secretary of State is directly responsible for the action of His Majesty's representatives at the Security Council. Everyone in this House and everyone throughout the world appreciated—was almost thrilled—the success which the Security Council had in ordering the cessation of hostilities and having that order obeyed. The success it had showed that it could impose discipline for peace on two peoples at war. The question I want to ask my hon. Friend is this. Why was it, when the motion came before the Security Council that the Council should order the cessation of hostilities, that the British delegate did not vote on the motion? Why was it the British delegate abstained? I ask the question particularly because this motion was sponsored by two of our Dominions, Australia and the new Dominion of India. I would have expected, after all the speeches we have heard from the Front Bench deploring the fighting and the protestations about using our best efforts to mediate to prevent fighting, to find the British delegate first in the voting list in favour of the cessation of hostilities.

6.31 a.m.

Mr. Driberg: Like the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) I feel it is highly regrettable that Great Britain should have abandoned the initiative which we had had in the United Nations Security Council, and that we should seem to have lagged behind India and Australia in the fullest possible support for the United Nations. I only want to ask my hon. Friend two specific questions. First, are we still allowing Dutch troops to be trained in this country? The Foreign Secretary was not quite clear in his answer on that point last week. He seemed to indicate that Dutch troops are still being trained here. He added, that we told the Dutch that we did not intend them to be sent to take part in a colonial

war in Indonesia, but what security can there possibly be that they will not be sent there after they have left this country when they are completely under the control of the Netherlands Government? In this connection, my hon. Friend himself, getting on for a year ago, said that almost all the Dutch troops in this country would be out by November last.
The second specific question is this: Can he give an assurance that there is no truth whatsoever in the detailed and rather disquieting story which appeared in the "News Chronicle" from a reputable correspondent, Mr. Solon, at The Hague, to the effect that the Dutch Government misled Dutch labour and the trade union movement into supporting this colonial venture by assuring them that the British and American Governments approved of the Dutch Government's action? I am not asking whether the British and the American Governments did in fact approve the Dutch Government's action. I know he would deny that and I hope rightly. But I want an assurance that the Dutch Government did not use such a story to mislead the Dutch labour and trade union movement.

6.40 a.m.

Mr. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): It is something of a privilege to make a concluding speech as our August Bank Holiday draws to a close. I am sure we all feel much refreshed by the day of relaxation and rest, though it seems to have been too much for hon. Members on the benches opposite. The main charge I have to answer, I think, is that we have been backing Dutch imperialism and that we have backed and favoured the Dutch. I want to begin by saying straight out that there is absolutely no evidence for this and nothing has been said or suggested in my view to confirm it. From the beginning our whole effort has been to try and get the two sides together to prevent hostilities in Indonesia. I need not go back to the long attempts to mediate which were undertaken by Mr. Dening, Lord Inverchapel and Lord Killearn, and thereafter to the work of Mr. Mitchieson, Consul-General in Batavia, in connection with the negotiations of the Linggadjati Agreement. The work done by these four men has been highly praised by both sides, Indonesians and Dutch, and both sides of


the House will agree that that is something of which we can be proud.
When the negotiations for the implementation of the agreement reached that critical stage in June last we indicated to the Dutch Government our readiness once again to exercise our good offices, and I was not clear as to the intention of the hon. Member for Deritend (Mr. Longden; when he said that we should have behaved three or four weeks ago as we had behaved then. He complained of lack of foresight or a change of policy. We have made constant offers to mediate and to perform other good offices, and the idea that we have been hanging back will not hold water. Our persistence in making these offers was not always by any means well received by the Dutch Government. Notwithstanding this on 21st July, when hostilities broke out, we again offered our services, and although the Dutch took note of this they declined our offer and we therefore asked the American Government to participate in a joint effort. This mediation came to nothing. Although no formal reply was received by the United States Government we were given to understand that our offer was not appropriate at that time.
In those circumstances, when they knew our negotiations had come to nothing, Australia and India referred this question to the Security Council. On Ist August it was known to the Security Council that the Netherlands Government had received and accepted an offer of mediation from the United States Government, and the Council then passed a resolution calling upon the parties, first, to cease hostilities forthwith, secondly, to settle their dispute through arbitration by peaceful means and thirdly to keep the Council informed of the progress of the settlement. We welcome any steps calculated to put an end once and for all to the hostilities. Our view has always been that the method of achieving Indonesian independence within the framework of the Linggadajati Agreement is one to be settled by the Dutch and Indonesians. Nor do we contest the claim of the Dutch that this is a matter of internal jurisdiction while the United States of Indonesia are only envisaged as coming into being on the Ist of January, 1949; but the fact that hostilities have broken out there, having widespread repercussions outside Indonesia,

does constitute a situation which the Security Council have felt it necessary to consider.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) as to why the British representative did not support the resolution of the Security Council, our aims are and were the same as the aims of the Australian and Indian Governments—to get effective Security Council action to stop hostilities immediately. The United States resolution, which was the one that was passed, was designed to avoid difficulties which might arise through action under Article 39 of the Charter; for example, juridical questions about domestic jurisdiction involving the exact status of the Indonesian republic. We felt that the resolution did not have this effect, since it prejudged the legal issue by suggesting that Article 2 (7), precluding the Council from interfering in domestic affairs, did not apply in the present case. Our position, which was made clear in the Security Council, was not that there was any difference in objective—everyone knew that there was not, and the sincerity of the British representatives was clearly shown by the history of the action we had taken—but was a difference of view on the wording of the resolution and the procedure involved.
I do not agree that it was in any way a loss of initiative. On the contrary. In the last week, as in many previous weeks, we have taken the initiative, by ourselves, to get a satisfactory solution. The hon. Member for Deritend wanted us to apply sanctions even now, I imagine, after the "Cease fire" has been ordered by the Dutch Government. Whatever may be said for trying sanctions at other stages of a dispute, I think that to apply them at a time like the present would be unthinkable. The second thing I was asked about was the demand that troops should be withdrawn to the frontiers from which they started. Now that the Dutch have accepted the offer of mediation by the United States Government—an offer which is open to the Indonesians to accept, but their view has not yet been made clear—and negotiations seem to be imminent, I do not think I should make a statement about this matter, which will undoubtedly come up later. I do not think, therefore, that I can give a straight answer to the hon. Member on that point.
Arms and training constitute an important question. It goes back to our wartime arrangements with the Netherlands Government. When the war was on we made arrangements to train, equip and organise the Dutch forces to fight with us against the Germans, and also to take part in the German occupation. Since that time we have undertaken definite obligations to supply certain equipment to the Dutch in Europe. It would be very serious for us to repudiate this agreement, and would need careful consideration. Meanwhile, we have forbidden the export from Europe of all arms which might be used in the Far East. We have forbidden all supplies from the Far East, and on 16th June we warned the Dutch Government that if hostilities did break out this would be the course of action to which we should be forced. On the question of training, we have stopped all training facilities in the Far East. Of the training here, I can only say that the few troops over here cannot possibly have any effect on the outcome.
In conclusion, we are not in the least on the defensive over this. We have a clear conscience about the action we have taken in regard to the dispute. More than

that, we are proud of the part that Britain has played in it from the beginning—the part our troops played in the early days, and the part our negotiators have played since. The troops did magnificently, rescuing hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war and internees, and have been praised highly by both sides. Our negotiations and our negotiators, too, have received the highest praise for their tact and patience and objectivity. We have been criticised, I know. Most of the criticism—not all of it, by any means, but most of the criticism—has come from Communist sources. But we have nothing for which to apologise. We think we can be proud of the job Britain has done in this problem. For the future, we are, of course, very glad to have seen from recent reports that the Dutch have ordered the "cease fire." We hope that a solution will be reached by the mediators, and that that solution will be lasting and final; and we believe that, when that solution is reached, it will have been helped forward very greatly by the part we have played in Indonesia during these past months.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter to Seven o'Clock a.m.